Отдел первый. Христианство и мир языческий: борьба христианства с язычеством в жизни и мысли

I. The Post-Apostolic Church and the Roman Empire A characteristic feature of the position of the primacy of the church is determined by its name “ecclesia pressa” (“persecuted, oppressed Church”). Indeed, this period is so exceptional that the question of the state’s relationship to the Christian Church pushes all other questions into the background. If you look at this time from a distant point, you would see one picture - a struggle for existence. The most important questions of the internal church life would appear as details in this picture. What will endure: spirit or numbers - that is the main question of this period. The struggle of the church with the external force of the state found expression in martyrdom. The church of the post-apostolic period, ecclesia pressa, was the church of martyrs. Martyrdom is a highly characteristic phenomenon; that it is closely connected with this time is evident from how difficult it is to convey the Greek concept "martus" in other languages. The ancient eastern peoples translated it literally, therefore, without commentary. The Greek μάρτυζ means witness. It corresponds to the Syriac sohdo, testis, from the verb sehad, testatus est, Arabic sahid shahid (), temoin veridique, from the verb shahida, rendre temoignage de, Ethiopian samayit, listening, from the verb samya (= Heb.) - heard, asmya - listened = testified, Armenian vkaj ( Luke 24:48) from the verb vkajel to testify, Georgian, it seems, motsame, i.e. also a witness 1. New Slavic ones, not excluding Western ones (Czech mucedlnik, Polish meczennik), interpreted this word when translating, but not entirely correctly. On the contrary, Western peoples, starting with Latin, left the Greek word without translation; Latin martyr passed into all Romance, up to and including Romanian, and Germanic languages ​​(German Martyrer), however, with an interpretation in the Slavic sense (Marter = torment, torture, torture), as well as in Magyar. The word “martyr”, which is translated among the Slavs as the Greek martus - witness, conveys only a secondary feature of the fact and appeared as a response of direct human feeling to the story of the terrible suffering that the martures endured. This translation indicates that in martyrdom these peoples are most affected by the torture of the martyrs, and not by their testimony for the faith. But the Greek Christian looked at the phenomenon from the other side. Martyrs are fighters (aqlhtai) of the faith; their torment is a “feat” with a touch of solemnity, agwn. Martus, therefore, is not a passive (martyr a participio passivi) sufferer, but a hero - a doer. In the story of the martyrs, we, separated from the beginning of Christianity by many centuries, are struck first of all by the tortures to which they were subjected. But for contemporaries familiar with Roman judicial practice, these tortures were a common occurrence. In certain cases, every criminal, whether a pagan or a Christian, was subjected to torture. Before the Roman tribunal, Christians accused of violating public order appeared as defendants, deserving (if guilty) of punishment and, above all, subject to the most serious interrogation. Torture in Roman court was a common legal means of interrogation. In addition, the nerves of the Roman people, accustomed to the excitement of bloody spectacles in amphitheaters, were so dulled that human life was valued little. So, for example, the testimony of a slave, according to Roman law, was only significant in court if it was given under torture, and slave witnesses were tortured; it was not taken into account if an innocent slave, whose whole guilt was that he knew something important for another free person, came out with broken limbs and half-dead. Thus, what we see as cruelty was then an ordinary detail of legal proceedings. Moreover, Christians were accused of a criminal offense, “lese majeste,” and judges had the legal right to use abundant torture against defendants of this kind. Therefore, the suffering of Christians at that time was an out-of-the-ordinary phenomenon only when the torture was especially subtle and brutal or morally outrageous. Thus, the concept of martyrdom expressed in our term is least likely to understand the true meaning of martyrdom. The current state of philological science is such that it cannot yet satisfactorily explain the Greek “martus”. Nevertheless, philologists speak in the sense that martus is akin to marmairw, I shine, I sparkle. Others connect martus with mermeros, difficult (sorgenvoll); root in mermenos; – mer, hence “merimna”, is a word difficult to translate; in Russian it is conveyed inaccurately by the word “care”, like jrontis 2. It is believed that this root appears in the Sanskrit smarati, he remembers - but with such a connotation that the very remembering gives torment to the rememberer, that is, it is something that cannot be forgotten. This "remembers" is related to the Latin memoro, but not memini, which comes from the root mana. The difference between memini and memoro is that the first means a pleasant feeling of free and strong memory, and the second is associated with the concept of torment. Here they also find the root for the German smerza, meaning pain. Thus, martus means one who knows something and feels it in his whole being as a burden, and this he confesses. What meaning needs to be connected with martyrdom can be seen a) from the biblical usage of words in the New Testament, which finds an explanation in the special historical task of Christianity in the early times, b) from the opposition of the concept of “martyr” to the concept of “confessor”, c) from the historical concept of “witness”, as it developed on biblical soil in Old Testament times. An analogy for understanding this meaning can to some extent be provided by the moral logic of the jury at the present time. a) The height of the feat of the martyrs in the history of the Christian church is already evidenced by the fact that Jesus Christ Himself deigns to call Himself “martus” - “faithful witness” (Rev. 3:14, 1:5; cf. Eus. h. e. V, 2.3) and the martyrs - according to Slavic usage - His “witnesses” (Rev. 2:13: Anteipas [Pergamon] o martus Mou o pistos Mou, os apektanqh par' umin; cf. Rev. 17:6: ek tou aimatos twn marturwn Ihsou; But Christ is also called “the apostle of our confession” (Heb. 3:1) and entrusts the apostles with the ministry of being His witnesses, martures; (Acts 1:8, cf. Acts 26:16,22). And the apostles call their mission “thn marturian Ihsou Cristou” (Rev. 1:2). So, martyrdom is a continuation of the apostolic ministry in the world. When Christianity appeared, the civilized world of paganism had already lost faith in its religion to such an extent that one must be surprised how it could defend this religion for three whole centuries. The pagans believed in their gods less than the Christians themselves who fought against them. For Christians, these gods were, at least, demons, while an intelligent pagan was inclined to consider them simply fiction. In the religion of the Romans, faith was not as important as in Christianity. Pistis – not transferable into Latin; fides is just a counterfeit of it. Fides does not mean faith as belief, but only honesty towards God. Thus, Roman religion did not consist in belief, but in the expression of this belief in cult. And it was easy (for weathered indifference) to render a cult even without faith. Roman paganism was an enemy that could not be given a general battle, because it could not be forced to seriously discuss the deep difference that separated its concepts from Christian ones. Apologists, like Tertullian, argued with all the fervor of sincere conviction that religion - any religion - should enjoy freedom; that a cult without faith would inevitably only offend the deity to whom it is worshiped; that by forcing Christians to sacrifice, the Romans only angered their gods. To this argument ad hominem (“to man”), the skeptical pagans, who had long ceased to fear the wrath of their gods, calmly answered: “What do you care if Jupiter or Janus is angry with us because of this? You will only make a sacrifice and leave us to reckon with the gods for its consequences.” “But these gods do not exist,” they objected. “The less, therefore,” they answered, “there is reason to fear harm from making a sacrifice to them.” Whoever refused something so easy seemed to be risking his life for such trifles. Any objections of Christians that a cult rendered to the gods under duress can only anger the gods, that it is impossible to honor false gods - these stone and wooden statues, flew without a trace through the thoughts of the indifferentists, who willingly took the wrath of the gods at their own peril, and did not see a goal in abandoning the cult of statues due to its complete harmlessness. The religious superficiality of the pagans, who looked at their religion more as a cult than as a faith, made possible the phenomenon that Christians were persecuted for their beliefs by people of indifferent convictions, persecuted coldly, without personal involvement or bitterness. With a light attitude towards their faith, the government people of Rome could not appreciate the significance of Christianity as a fact of conscience, could not understand the gravity of the donation that they wanted from Christians, assuming that they demanded the minimum from them. From this it is revealed that the life task of Christians of the first centuries, the meaning of such a phenomenon in Christian history as martyrdom, was in its main element positive, and not negative. This task was not to destroy any existing religious views of those pagans with whom they had to deal, but mainly to awaken the dormant and historically outdated religious conscience of the paganism surrounding Christians, to force them to take a more serious look at their religious duties, at their religious position, to show the world around them by their personal example of high self-sacrifice that religion is a matter so important that in certain cases it is better to sacrifice one’s life than give up on her. The martyrs were preachers of Christianity, continuers of the apostolic ministry, and they fulfilled this mission precisely as martures, that is, as witnesses. b) The special meaning of the word “martus” is clear from the established distinction in Christian usage between martus = “martyr” = witness and omologhths = “confessor”. The Gallic martyrs (177) refuse to accept from the believers the glorious name “martures” and humbly call themselves “omologoi” (= omologhtai) metrioi kai tapeinoi” (Eus. h.e. V, 2.3). The name “confessor,” according to their usage, is assigned by the church to those believers who confessed Christ and were even subjected to severe torture for their faith, but did not die during agwnos (“competition, struggle”), but died a natural death. But the logical meaning of the shade of humility that is given in the name omologhths can only be understood from the lexical meaning of this word. Omologhths is composed of omou and legein and, according to its composition, means that person who has one word together with another. Omologoumenon is one common word, generally accepted, about which there is no difference of opinion, on which everyone agrees. But according to Greek usage, omou extends not to one content, but also to the fact of simultaneous pronunciation. For example, omoklh, from omou and kalew, means a simultaneous greeting to the crowd (for example, the cry of soldiers: “we wish you good health”) or a threat to the enemy. Thus, “homologues” are those that say the same thing and together. This last feature of joint pronunciation formed the basis of the Alexandrian translation of the expression of Psalm 136:1-3: “confess the Lord” - the Hebrew word exomologeisqe, “glorify together.” Martus comes forward in front of others and says that others do not know. He focuses everyone's attention on himself and can arouse opposition against himself. Homologists modestly say what is generally known, but Martus takes the feat of proving a new truth. And this leads to the following psychological assumptions: in order to proclaim the truth known to everyone, the proclaimer does not require special moral energy; since the preaching of such truth does not impose on him extreme responsibility before society and does not expose him to danger from society; and for society itself this sermon does not have high value. Consequently, martus, as an oppositum voci omologhths, means one who proclaims a truth that is not generally accepted, controversial, and, moreover, proclaims it alone. And this requires high moral energy: martus occupies a post that is extremely important, but also very responsible and dangerous. c) This was precisely the meaning of “witness” at the Old Testament court. The ninth commandment represents him as the person who can do the maximum evil that a person can bring to his neighbor with his word. What energy of moral conviction was required from a judicial witness, what a heavy responsibility lay on him, can be seen from Deut. 17:7 and from the fact that the Jewish judge, according to the Talmud, inviting the witness to look at the face of the defendant, reminded the first that he was obliged to testify as if all of humanity stood before him in the person of the defendant, and the fate of the whole world depended on his word as a witness. To put it briefly: the Old Testament witness at the trial bore two, now separated, responsible responsibilities: 1) witness (answering the question about whether the defendant committed the fact) and 2) juror (answering the question about the imputability of the fact to the defendant, the verdict on his guilt). This last aspect, the position of the juror, especially brings the mission of the martyrs closer to our understanding. The guilt of a defendant who does not confess to committing a crime almost always remains not fully proven. There are always gaps in the prosecutor's argumentation (even more expanded by the efforts of the defense attorney), which, from the point of view of formal logic, make the evidence more or less indecisive. To find a way out of this irremovable situation, the law turns from strict formal-logical rules to the living moral sense of twelve chosen persons, puts them, after a certain careful choice, in a position in which their moral sense must develop all its energy (“I will apply all the power of my understanding, remembering ... that I must give an answer ...”), and their verdict, so to speak, is the summed up result not of logical judgments, but of psychological thinking, their various responses to the entire set of facts and accepts thoughts presented in court as legal truth. The same logically unprovable position was in the days of the martyrs for religious truth, before which the indifferent pagan intelligentsia stood with the skeptical question: “What is truth?”, and the dark masses were powerless to understand and evaluate it. The martyrs appeared before such people, offering their blood instead of proof of the truth in which they were convinced, which for them, the “witnesses,” was the obviousness of the fact. The formal (psychological) high seriousness of such a conviction should have spoken to the minds of thinking people about the substantive seriousness of such a faith, should have raised the question: should not this conviction (“verdict” sui generis), this auctoritas, be recognized as a full-fledged replacement for the missing logical arguments? And once a thinking indifferentist thought deeply about religious issues as serious ones, he was already on the path to Christianity. If, instead of the cold intelligentsia, there stood a simple mass, then the animation of the martyrs amazed them more than the representatives of the first, and forced them to treat the fact that was happening with that silent reverence, which was already half the conversion. Tertullian's words: “semen est sanguis christianorum” (“the blood of Christians is the seed”) express a deep psychological truth and at the same time a historical fact 3. 2. Reasons for the persecution of Christians The other party in the struggle between Christianity and paganism was the Roman state, and if you look at the matter from the point of view of the state, then many things will appear in a special light. What will strike us first is not the cruelty of the persecutions and their multitude. On the contrary, we have to ask the question why the state persecuted Christians little, why it performed its duty weakly. We see that waves are rising against Christians, but they are divided into two halves. If the people were agitated against Christians, then the state stood up for the Christians, and vice versa. The church has never had to deal with the full mass of enemies, with the exception of the times of Diocletian, when paganism for the last time and in all its strength came out against Christianity. The fate of Christianity in the Roman Empire was determined generally by the participation of three factors: the attitude of the common people, the Roman state and the Greco-Roman intelligentsia towards it. 1) Attitude to Christianity of the common people The attitude of the common people towards Christianity at first, when nothing positive was known about it, is completely understandable and characteristic of the dark masses. The commoner most retained the remnants of the former faith, even heightened and elevated, which was slightly different from superstition. Theoretical questions: whether there is a God, and whether those gods whom the state honors deserve veneration lie outside the popular horizon. Only one thing was clear to the people: that there was something that sent good and evil, more often evil; therefore, this something should be appeased, and it can only be appeased by traditional means - by performing certain ceremonies. Once Christianity appeared, preventing the implementation of these decrees, it became clear to the people that the gods would be angry because of this and would punish not only the Christians, but the entire empire. Thus, Christianity was a dangerous quantity that had to be fought with both “the right and the right.” And that Christians were dangerous, this was undoubtedly for the people, firstly, because they were accused of atheism (aqeoths), not in the legal sense, but in the literal, primitive sense - in the sense of unbelieving people who do not recognize gods. This accusation stemmed from the fact that Christians did not worship gods and did not have churches. Then comes the accusation of the so-called Thyest suppers (questeia deipna); this expression has a connection with the famous legend about King Tiestes, who, wanting to test the omniscience of Jupiter, suggested that he slaughter his own son. This is the popular idea of ​​the sacrament of the Eucharist. It was reported that Christians feed on some kind of blood, therefore, they slaughter babies. If they talk about some kind of bread, it only means that they sprinkle flour on babies in order to kill them with a bolder hand. The third - the most vile accusation - is of Oedipal mixtures (oidipodeioi mixeis). The term is based on the famous legend of Oedipus and his shameful marriage to his mother. The basis for accusing Christians of this crime was love suppers. They suspected that Christians at their meetings were indulging in terrible debauchery, the further consequence of which was the destruction of children. It turned out that they were debauchees, misanthropes, and atheists. Suspected of such crimes, Christians were in the eyes of the common people hated by the gods and hence guilty of all social disasters. In Africa there was even a proverb: “God doesn’t give rain, so let’s go after the Christians.” Will the Tiber overflow to the city walls - “Christians to the lions.” The question arose: could anything good come from such a people? Isn't it subject to extermination? How such wild ideas could arise seems completely understandable from the psychological side. The life of the common people is particularly open, everything is done outwardly, and the slightest attempt to do anything secretly arouses suspicion. The closed nature of Christian worship and Christian sacraments had the disadvantage that the people suspected evil in these mysteries. To our surprise, we find many similar phenomena that people are inclined to always suspect the worst in mystery. Proof of this is provided by the history of Christianity itself. It seems that Christians themselves, who have suffered sufficiently from these unfavorable ideas about their worship, should be more than careful. Meanwhile, we find that Christian polemicists accuse the Gnostic sects of all such abominations, as if they indulge in all the indicated vices. The matter is not limited to just sects, it extends to entire confessions; for example, there is a well-known accusation against Jews that they consumed the blood of Christian babies. Egyptian Christians tend to suspect paganism itself of heinous crimes; they said that the blood of babies was used there too. In history, such accusations do not end with some kind of Middle Ages; they are also found in the 19th century. Near Shiraz in Persia there is an anti-Shia Muslim sect who call themselves the "People of Truth." She is hostile to Muslims, has her own special way of life, her own worship, and Muslim mullahs tell about her all the bad things that were invented by pagans about Christians. But the “people of truth” themselves, who came out of Kurdistan, accuse the sect of fire extinguishers existing in Kurdistan of similar crimes. Thus, for one reason or another, to the extent of their mental ignorance and squalor, the people formed bad ideas about Christians. Little by little, the wave of bad ideas rose higher and higher, from the dungeons it penetrated into the living rooms. If the people had free hands, then the history of Christianity would turn into a street massacre, and Christianity would be exterminated without a trace. But at first the state itself placed its sovereign power between Christianity and the common people and reduced the rage of the people to a minimum. 2) The attitude of the government towards Christianity. The question of the attitude of the pagan government towards Christianity in scientific literature is not without interest. In the 50s of this century 4 this question did not occur to anyone to the extent that it does now. The recently deceased (1897) French archaeologist Leblanc was the first to thoroughly examine the legal basis for the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire (Le Blant, Sur les bases juridiques des poursuites dirigees contre les martyres. Paris 1866). His works were used by the German scientist Franz Gorres, who placed prof. in the Real-Encyklopadie der christlichen Alterthumer. Kraus (V. I, 1880) an article on persecution against Christians, in which he briefly expressed the results that the French researcher had arrived at. The results of these works were taken into account in a detailed study of the state of Christianity before Diocletian, written by Neumann (S. Neumann, Der romische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche. I. Leipzig 1890). Apparently, this scientist has received a solid legal education, since he feels in his field in legal matters. How important his work is can be seen from the fact that the famous Mommsen considered it necessary to supplement it with the help of his colossal knowledge of Roman antiquities and wrote, in turn, the article “On a religious crime under Roman law” (Der Religionsfrevel nach romischem Recht in Historische Zeitschrift 1890), which constitutes an era in historical literature about the position of Christians in the Roman Empire, just as everything that is expressed constitutes an era Mommsen in the field of Roman history. Thus, in this department of church history, the works of Mommsen and Leblanc should not be unknown to anyone. The views expressed in these studies on immature minds are capable of producing the strange impression that it seemed to some that Christians in the Roman Empire lived well, since they were treated according to the law, as if the concept of “law” coincided with the concept of ideal justice; others were left with the impression that this was the right thing to do with Christians. Meanwhile, it all comes down to this: the persecution was neither a street massacre nor popular persecution; and not everyone he met and crossed could do whatever he wanted; on the contrary, from the point of view of Roman criminal law, prosecutions were clothed in the form of a judicial sentence, and every trial with its modifications was carried out according to the law. Consequently, persecution was a natural phenomenon and the view of Leblanc and Mommsen did not assert anything more than this. Least of all did it defend the Roman state, least of all did it accuse Christians of causing persecution. The tragedy of this story lies in the fact that Christianity appeared in the world as a kingdom not of this world, that is, as the Church. It did not bring with it any political program, but in principle it had to coexist with all forms of government, because on the banner of Christianity it was written: “There is no power except from God, but the powers that exist are created by God” (Rom. 13:1). The state should not have clashed with the Christian Church, and yet it turns out that it was actually fighting the church. Common Reasons for Government Persecution of Christians History tells us that by the time Christianity appeared, the pagan gods had lost the trust of society. Even the priests were often skeptics. Sincere faith began to be considered a sign of underdevelopment. However, we see persecution of Christians from enlightened emperors: the houses of Antoninus, Decius, Diocletian. What motivated them when they persecuted Christians? The assumption of simple solidarity with the people cannot serve as an explanation here: initially the government tried to restrain the hatred of the masses towards Christians to a legal extent, and only later, when, with greater acquaintance with Christianity, the people stopped hating, the empire itself began to persecute Christians. It is therefore impossible to see here only an adaptation to popular prejudices. The opposition is incredible because of religious motives alone: ​​Christianity, of course, is the opposite of paganism, but the Romans also tolerated Judaism, a religion no less exceptional. From here it is natural to admit some other grounds for the persecution of Christians by the government. Although it is true that the pagan priests and intelligentsia were cold towards their religion, it is also true that Christians were persecuted for their negative attitude towards the pagan gods. Tertullian, the most competent and insightful mind among the apologists, says that the main and even the only reason for the persecution of Christians is their denial of the Roman gods. The explanation is that in the Roman Empire there was no size equal to the church, that is, there was no pagan church. What among Christians belonged to the sphere of church activity, in Rome belonged to the sphere of state activity. Priests, pontiffs, and flamens were government officials; therefore, by virtue of historical necessity, the challenge that the Christian church posed to the pagan faith and to which the pagan church had to respond was accepted by the state, since there was no church in the Roman Empire. This led to the struggle between the church and the state. Christianity did not present any program, did not make any demands, but this must be understood with a reservation. As an everyday value that existed under certain conditions, Christianity required a certain benefit, only this requirement was revealed in connection with special circumstances. It directly presented only one proposition: that religion is a matter of personal convictions and personal conscience. The Roman Empire responded with the opposite thesis: religion is established not by the individual, but by the people or their representatives in the state. If the Roman Empire had agreed to make a concession and introduced the thesis of Christianity into its legislation, then the struggle would have been impossible. But the Roman Empire did not do this due to largely formal circumstances. History testifies to the skeptical attitude of the pagan intelligentsia towards religion. But, despite their skepticism, these people preferred hypocrisy to falling away from their previous faith. This commitment cannot be explained by selfish motives (priests often held other government positions that were more important than priestly ones). The reason for this devotion to religion lies in the fact that the pagan religion was a state religion in the primary sense of the word. Rome not only recognized its religion: the idea of ​​statehood was closely intertwined with the idea of ​​religion. The entire past of the Roman state proceeded sub auspiciis deorum (“under the direction of the gods”); During the time of the empire, the cult of Rome itself and the emperors appeared: statehood itself, therefore, became the subject of religious veneration. The abolition of religion seemed to threaten the fall of the glorious Roman state. That is why educated people considered it necessary to support the state religion; for them it was a matter of political necessity. Thus, pontifex P. Mucius Scaevola (100 BC. X.) indicated three types of religion: 1) the religion of mythology, which was suitable only for stage plots, 2) philosophical religion, which could even be dangerous for statehood, and 3) political religion, as support for existing institutions; it is this, according to Cotta, that should be preserved. Varro also spoke out in this sense (50 BC). Seneca expressed that, in any case, a wise person must observe rituals not because they are pleasing to God, but because the law prescribes it. Thus, in the state past of Rome there were reasons to support the pagan religion. Another motive for preserving the pagan religion was the conservatism of the Roman character, bordering on extreme formalism. The Romans had an instinctive respect for everything devoted, and in the name of that devotee they often tolerated his present inconveniences. Dislike for innovation was reflected even in small things: for example, for those carrying out a coup d'etat, they did not establish another concept as rerum novarum molitores, and literally this means people introducing new things. Conservatism was even reflected in the fact that when a Roman cast a vote in some legislative assembly, rejecting any new bill, he wrote on a shard or on some other instrument with which votes were cast: “A” (i.e. antique), I reject, I deny, literally: I hold on to the old. In religious rituals, outdated expressions were used, which were little understood by the priests themselves. Religion became a political force and often became a means of struggle in the hands of the patricians. So, for example, if it was necessary to reject some resolution of a national assembly, then the day on which the assembly took place was declared an unhappy day; then the plebeians, although they understood that this was a lie, obeyed. During the time of the emperors, religious motives often threatened popular uprisings. During one flood, Tiberius did not ask for the Sibylline books and thus gave rise to popular unrest. A type of Roman conservatism was formalism, respect for the old form. In the field of law it gave rise to various fictions; Without issuing new laws, they subsumed under the old ones phenomena of the new order that were not provided for by them. The Roman people stood firmly for the old forms even when the content changed significantly. So, for example, the dependence of a wife on her husband was formulated not by any precise laws, but by the provision that the wife became the husband instead of the daughter. Archaic remains were seen in the sale and purchase of goods. The oldest form of trade was barter: for certain goods they offered other goods, and for some - copper; but this copper, circulating in pieces, did not have the value of a state coin, it was weighed, and this custom of weighing continued even when a certain coin was introduced - the silver denarius: important transactions were carried out in the old way per aes et libram (copper was weighed). A foreigner who had neither court nor protection (hospes = hostis) could sue the Roman who had offended him by posing as a Roman citizen, and the law allowed this fiction. All laws that have ever been made have retained their sanctity in principle, but they have been applied or not applied, depending on the circumstances. Due to such conservatism, even the most intelligent people supported the state religion. The patron gave Augustus the following advice: “honor the gods yourself according to the custom of your ancestors and force others (anagkaze) to do the same, hate and punish those who introduce foreign gods.” There were laws of the same nature; Thus, one of the laws of the XII tables prohibits private cults of foreign deities: “separatim nemo habessit deos; neve novos, neve advenas, nisi publice adscitos; private colunto.” The Roman religion itself strikes us with its individualism in a certain sense. In addition to the gods, so to speak, nationwide, there were local gods, Lares and Penates, who extended their influence only to a certain gens (gens), so that a Roman woman who got married left the cult of her gentis and accepted the cult of a new family and, thus, seemed to change her religion. Each locality, each city had its own gods, so the gods of Rome were the gods of only this city, and in such a way that they not only did not require worship from non-citizens, but even excluded it. At festive celebrations, the lictor, before making a sacrifice to the gods, usually proclaimed: “hostis, vinctus, mulier, virgo exesto,” that is, let the stranger, the prisoner, the woman, the girl go away. And the very hymns that were sung after this were sung in ancient, outdated Latin. Hostis is used here not in the sense of an enemy, but in the sense of a stranger, in the same sense in which we used the word “guest” in ancient times; vinctus, i.e. a person who is not free; mulier and virgo could not participate in the celebration as beings without full rights. And if a foreigner wanted to honor, for example, Jupiter Stator or Jupiter Capitolinus, then for this he had to ask permission of the Senate; This honor was awarded, for example, to the Edomite Herod. In general, only Roman citizens had the right to honor the Roman gods. But recognizing the state religion, the Romans respected the religions of other peoples and did not claim its exclusive dominance. They left their religion to the conquered peoples; they considered any changes here to be sacrilege; Roman gods coexisted with other gods. In addition, all polytheistic religions are not exclusive, and the Romans identified the gods of different peoples with their gods, and if some gods could not be identified, then they were ridiculed, but not persecuted (animal cult in Egypt). The history of Rome is the story of the gradual development of the civitas Roma from a minor republic to the extent of an extensive universal monarchy. In order to conquer this or that city, the Romans tried to appease, so to speak, lure the gods of this city into their camp, and as new regions were conquered, the Roman sky, the Roman pantheon, expanded. Julius Caesar speaks of the Gallic gods, Tacitus speaks of the Germanic gods as gods of the Roman pantheon under Roman names. Even when they subjugated Greece, the local religion turned out to be very similar to the Roman one, so that they soon identified Jupiter with Zeus, Minerva with Pallas Athena, etc. Hence, the habit was established - accepting the gods of conquered peoples into their pantheon. When conquests spread to the east, it became difficult to identify the Roman gods with the gods of the eastern peoples, whose religion was very different from the Roman one. But the Romans, without making the conquered peoples Roman citizens, did not oblige them to profess the Roman religion. It was considered completely sufficient if they remained faithful to the old gods. The principles by which Rome lived and was guided in its internal life, it was also guided in relation to the conquered peoples. The special nature of Roman religiosity explains the possibility of supporting the state religion in the event of a decline in faith. Roman religiosity cannot be called faith in the strict sense as a religious belief in the existence of God and His influence on man. In Roman religiosity, the main thing is not faith, but cult, an external attitude towards the Divine. Skepticism did not introduce a deep contradiction into the souls of admirers of Russian gods. Therefore, a skeptic could perform religious rituals (Cotta) without difficulty. The Romans honored their gods not out of a sense of love and respect, but simply because it was the custom: custom (sunhqeia) decided everything here. Honoring other gods was not obligatory for the Romans; it was only required to honor their gods according to domestic regulations. In the principle of religious views lay the possibility for the state to force the Romans to honor their gods, which turned into an obligation for them not to allow the veneration of other gods. This is what is required by the laws of the twelve tables, which clearly prohibit the honoring of gods other than one’s own, and the introduction of cults other than those established by the state. But in reality this coercion did not exist, since patriotism could be proven in other forms other than the veneration of the gods. In essence, the Romans were guided by the principle: injuria deorum diis cura (= for insulting the gods, let the gods take revenge). Thus, the state nature of religion, the conservatism and formalism of the Roman character and Roman religious superficiality are the supports for the struggle of paganism with Christianity. The consequences that flowed from such views of religion for the position of Christians in the Roman Empire are clear. All other cults, except those established by the state, were tolerated, but did not enjoy the right of propaganda in Rome. The Egyptians, for example, could preach their religion among the Syrians; but it was a completely different matter if propaganda was practiced in Rome: the propagandists were expelled from Rome. So, in 170 BC. the church of Isis was destroyed in Rome; in 132 the Phrygian priests were sent back. And in general, the Roman was against propaganda in Rome. If such cases of persecution for propaganda were not repeated often, only in those cases when propaganda took on a scandalous character, then this depended on the general nature of polytheism: polytheism is not jealous at all. In essence, a Roman could worship Jupiter and Minerva and together Isis of Egypt, and was not considered an apostate. In religious Roman politics, the stumbling block was the conquest of the Jewish people. The national gods of all conquered peoples were collected in the Roman pantheon, which was done in the form of assimilation of the latter; There was only one Jewish Jehovah: the Jews did not allow His image to be placed and they themselves persistently shied away from worshiping the Roman gods. They tried to identify Jehovah, on the basis of sound affinity, with Zeus Sabazios, who was honored in central Asia Minor: in Asia, Pamphylia, Isauria, Pisidia, etc.: there he was in great glory. But here we see more of a misunderstanding than a trend. But for the Jews the Romans had an excuse; the religion of the Jews was a national religion and, moreover, an ancient one, to encroach on which was considered wickedness; in addition, the Jews occupied an important political wedge, which was for Rome a stronghold for eastern conquests. Hence, the Romans reluctantly recognized the Jewish religion as a permitted religion (licita). This benefit was granted to the Jewish people all the more willingly because their rituals seemed strange and dirty, and therefore they thought that they would not have proselytes among other nations and could only repel any arrogant Roman aristocrat. Therefore, the monotheism of the Jew was granted to him. Little by little, due to various circumstances, this tolerance even turned into patronage. It is known that some - non-Jews - began to accept Jewish rituals, although these were only private phenomena. In any case, Judaism retained the right that it was an ancient religion, and therefore it would be an unjust phenomenon if descendants stopped confessing the God of their ancestors. Circumstances changed when Christianity appeared. The Romans had to treat Judaism more leniently than Christianity, since Christians, in their eyes, seemed to be apostates from the Jewish religion. A religion akin to Judaism, which was far from attractive to the Romans, Christianity differed significantly from it in such features that placed it in the eyes of Roman law and philosophy incomparably lower than the Jewish religion. It did not have historical rights behind it; it was religio nova, an “innovation” so antipathetic to Roman conservatism. It was not the religion of one people, but, on the contrary, lived only by proselytes from other religions. What the Roman state, in other national and permitted cults, always regarded on principle as an abuse of the freedom granted to them, for Christianity constituted the only conceivable modus vivendi. In other religions, propaganda was an occasional offense, but for Christianity it was a necessity of its very position in history. Christians have always been reproached with this defect of historical and national character in their religion. The national basis was of enormous importance to the Romans: for example, when Jerusalem was taken by Titus, and Judea lost its independent significance even as a province, then the marks that such and such was a Jew disappeared; they began to speak about the Jews like this: “who were once Jews”; for the Romans these were already peregrines, not Jews, something alien to the Roman world. With all the greater disapproval, the Romans had to treat Christians, whose right to exist was too precarious. And it was this proselytizing nature of Christianity that brought it into conflict with Roman government regulations. In the end, all the reasoning of the Romans about Christians boiled down to the fact that Christians did not bring anything good into the world, but only embodied the worst side of Judaism - the passion for discord. Christians represented the most restless element of society. And if there had been no cultural peace, then, according to the Romans, they would not have been slow to quarrel among themselves. Thus, Christianity lost in comparison with Judaism. No matter how unsympathetic Judaism was to Kels, for example, when compared with Christianity, he gives the Jews an advantage. “The Jews constitute a special nation and, having established their own local laws, still adhere to them. They preserve their religion, whatever it is, but still their own religion (patrion), and in this respect they act like all other people; because everyone adheres to their national customs. Yes, this is how it should be: everyone cannot reason in their own way, as it came to their mind, but it is necessary to observe the laws established for the whole society. All countries in the world have long been subordinate to their rulers and must be guided by their regulations; to destroy local primordial institutions would be lawlessness (ouc osion)” (Orig. p. Cels, V, 25). In Christianity, Kels sees a party that has separated from its national root (Judaism) and inherited from it a tendency towards discord (stasis). If, Kels thinks, all people wanted to become Christians, then the Christians themselves would not want this. With such views, the Roman state could only support the Jews in their struggle against Christians, seeing the latter as renegades of Judaism. Could there have been any reason for the Roman government to be lenient towards Christians? Christians could demand religious tolerance either in the name of truth or in the name of freedom of conscience. But for the government, Christianity remained a false religion: for the Romans, prescription was one of the criteria for the truth of a religion. Christianity contrasted the traditional classical sunhqeia - long ago - with its alhqeia (truth); and the world stood before him with its skeptical question: what is truth? The first foundation of the apologists, therefore, was only a petitio principii from the point of view of the pagans. And the sacred right of freedom of conscience, which Tertullian so eloquently defended, was too high and an impossible point of view for the Roman government. The state had the right to establish and legitimize religious cults. Christianity, which rejected the state religion, at the same time encroached on this right of Rome. His demand for freedom of personal conviction in the matter of religion could seem an unreasonable and incomprehensible demand from the point of view of the classical world. If the Polish lord minted his own gold coin of monstrous size, then this was in the nature of the lord's foolishness. And the claims of the Christians in this case seemed to the Roman rulers similar to what if in our time someone wished for himself the right to mint his own coin; cult and religion are established not by the individual, but by the state, just as the right to mint coins also belongs to the state. Thus, by rebelling against the state religion, Christians became guilty of a state crime. They are fundamentally enemies of the state, qui puniendi sunt (“who must be punished”). It is clear how, with such a view of Christians, it was possible to illuminate certain features of their life: their nightly meetings, their expectations of the king, the evasion of some Christians from military service. The beginning of Christianity was a bad recommendation for him. What worse could be said about Christians than what Tacitus said about them in his Annals: “Auctor nominis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pentium Pilatum supplicio affectus est” (“Christ, from whose name this name comes, was executed under Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate”; XV, 44)? Pilate had the powers of kingship and executed Jesus Christ. Ergo: what kind of leniency could there be for those who worship the one executed by Pilate? None. “Christians worship as God the one who, as a criminal, was executed by the Roman legal procurator” - this was the view of Christianity as a religion in the official spheres of the state. But if Christians are enemies of the state: why was the persecution of them relatively weak? Tertullian also asks: “If you condemn Christians, then why don’t you look for them? and if you don’t look for him, then why don’t you release him?” Indeed, it was a logical inconsistency, but psychologically easily understandable, from the point of view of humanity even very respectable, and in politics very ordinary. In most cases, the government simply did not believe in the danger from Christians, in their actual purely political hostility to Rome, just as they did not trust the horrors that popular rumor told about Christians. Christians are hostile to the empire, but only in the area of ​​principles. But real life according to principles constitutes, one might say, an ideal, the realization of which peoples are only striving; Moments are extremely rare when people live by principles and take conscious measures to implement them without relaxation in conclusions and without deviations in particulars. From this particular point of view, it is necessary to explain the fact that the position of Christians worsened in eras of political revival; it was especially difficult when the best people of Rome, animated by national-political ideals, sat on the Roman throne. Politically the criminal was harmless; bloody measures are not humane. When Christians came into conflict with state law, they were executed (it was necessary to support the authority of the state); but when they could be ignored, they were ignored. But in fact, only religious inspiration could cause the systematic persecution of Christians, and this inspiration did not exist. That is why the government itself did not initially wage an active struggle against Christians, and when the masses clashed with them, it acted only as a judge, and at the same time restrained the masses rather than excited them. “You have no right to exist” (non licet vos esse) - this is the government’s verdict on Christians. The position of Christians was tragic, but not so much because the supreme power was hostile to them, but because there was no solid legal ground under their feet. Christians could even exist openly, they could even prosper; but one denunciation due to a petty personal clash was enough - and their anti-state character was revealed in court and they were persecuted. As a matter of fact, Rome did not need to issue regulations against Christians. He only needed to remain at his base, to honor his national gods, for persecution of Christians to arise. Legal grounds for persecution of Christians The Roman Empire did not provide a place for the free existence of Christianity. How was this negative attitude of the Roman state towards Christianity expressed? Special orders were issued against Christians. But a closer look at the legal structure of the empire reveals that Christians would have been persecuted even if the government simply ignored them. Roman law, which developed much earlier than the advent of Christianity, contained many details that turned out to be unfavorable for Christianity and for any other phenomenon similar to it in this respect. If paganism could produce from its midst such people who, while recognizing the pagan gods, at the same time refused to honor them with sacrifices, then such a sect would have a chance of being persecuted almost as stubbornly as Christianity. This view of the position of Christianity in the Roman Empire, although elements for it had long been collected in church history, was especially firmly demonstrated by the French scientist Leblanc in the mentioned study. Christians could be persecuted independently of any influence of the central government simply because various points of general Roman law in force could be applied to them. The society of Christians generally had the character of a collegii illiciti, an “illegal assembly” (persecution in form). Various aspects of Christian behavior could be classified either as sacrilegium, a crime against faith, or as crimen laesae majestatis, a crime against the state, or as ars magica, the practice of magic (persecution by content). Pursuit by Form. Christianity in form is the Church, and ekklhsia is a legally defined concept. Christianity as such cannot exist by individual believers as special units; they must come together; meetings of believers in the church are necessary. Thus, from the point of view of the Roman government, the Christian church was a collegium or licitum or illicitum. The latter kind of collegium (illicita) meant secret gatherings pursuing anti-state goals. The nightly liturgical meetings of Christians had an outward resemblance to those coetus noctumi (night gatherings), with those haeteriae (gatherings of conspirators), against which Roman legislation had long been armed. Already one of the laws of the 12 tables says: “si quis in urbe coitus nocturnos agitaverit, capitale esto.” This law was applied in practice more than once to various religious societies (for example, to the cult of Bacchus that appeared in Rome, whose followers were suspected of conspiracy, clandestinae conjurationes). In Roman opinion, night meetings were associated with the idea that something evil was being planned at them. Secret meetings went against the ancient legal view of the Romans that where the Roman people gather, an official representative of this people should be present and preside over this meeting. Therefore, even during the Republic, the Roman government was very reluctant to give permission at all to establish any corporations, collegia licita. During the time of the Caesars, this mistrust intensified even more, and they tried to reduce the number of such corporations to the last possible extent. Laws against heteria were issued under Julius Caesar and Augustus. When the ruler of Bithynia, Pliny, asked Emperor Trajan to allow the establishment of a craft artel, collegium fabrorum, in the burned-out Nicomedia, the main city of Bithynia - an artel of only 150 members, moreover, exclusively from artisans, who should be constantly monitored, the emperor refused him on the grounds that such collegiums easily turn into malicious gatherings (hetaeriae quam vis breves fient). Even in permitted corporations, the emperors tried to regulate every little detail and took special care that their meetings were not frequent (collegia funeraria no more than once a month). In general, Roman lawyers saw in unauthorized colleges even more than a conspiracy; they looked at them as open rebellion (Ulpian in 220). Thus, Rome was generally against collegiality. In essence, he recognized only open colleges, where a representative of the Roman government would be present, which the Christian Church could not allow and ipso facto became collegium illicitum. From here it is verbally close to the statement: non licet vos esse (you have no right to exist). Thus, for Christians, the first obstacle to free existence was the Church itself, and if Rome had not even paid attention to anything else, it would have persecuted Christians for participating in secret gatherings. Over time, however, this side lost its special sharpness: life took its toll and defeated the tenacity of even the best statesmen. Rome could have nothing against the well-being of its members, and life prescribed certain rules for this. Some laborer, living from hand to mouth, demanded, however, a decent burial. For this purpose, so-called funeral funds were established. Likewise, wanting to change his place of residence and not having the means to do so, he sought support from special funds. It was difficult for the state to object to this. And thus, with all the hostility of the state towards colleges, they enjoyed the exception of collegia tenuiorum, corporations of small, unimportant people, either by property status, or by their social status. To open such colleges, it seems, no particularly complex formalities were required. The law recognized them as existing, as long as nothing was done in them that was prohibited by laws or Senate decrees. Thus, to the extent that the colleges tenuiorum did not violate general Roman law, they were recognized as permissible and tolerable. In particular, Roman law was lenient towards the so-called collegia funeraticia, funeral colleges. Burial is such an essential need for a person and a citizen that it is impossible to refuse it to anyone. Therefore, the establishment of fraternities founded for this purpose naturally began to claim the special indulgence and protection of state laws, and indeed everyone, not excluding slaves, was allowed to found and join societies established for this purpose and to make contributions for burial. This preferential respect for funeral colleges rests on the general view of Roman law on burial places. The Romans always revered the grave, even if it was the grave of a state criminal. The tomb was the "locus religiosus" for the Romans. To understand the meaning of this term, you need to appreciate the moment that is included in the concept of religion. No matter how much philologists have managed to give it a strictly exalted meaning, its root is in the word ligare - to bind, and religion, therefore, means something restraining, like an invisible bridle that stops forward movement, forcing sometimes to retreat, sometimes to shy away back. The nature of fear thus lies at the heart of religion. Likewise, if a person is characterized as “pius in matrem, religiosus in patrem,” then here too this expression has the same meaning. The son has the right to be tender and affectionate with his mother: she tolerates all this by the very nature of female nature, which requires love and semi-childish caresses. But the father is already a serious figure and demands that the son be religiosus towards him, that is, not rush into the father’s area of ​​​​action, but reverently retreat. Hence the religious character of churches imposes a restraining curb, and the expression “religio est” means “to do is prohibited,” on the contrary, “non est religio” - “to do is allowed.” Thus, religion is something negative and restraining, and loci religiosi are those places that force a person to retreat. By bringing the body of a deceased person to a place, lawyers say, we make that place sacred and religious. The conversion of such a place for worldly purposes constitutes profanation, an insult to the state cult. This view of burial places as sacred extends to absolutely all places where people were buried, whether the poor, foreigners, or even the most criminals. With the same privileged position, there were boards under the Greek name qiasoi. These are purely religious colleges for honoring one or another god. Their emergence was natural. Rome was rightly called the capital of the whole world; the influx of foreigners in it was so great as it is impossible to imagine. None of the capitals of modern states has seen such an influx of foreigners. In addition to the indigenous population, there were thus also originarii in Rome, non-Roman natives, wherever they had their domicilium and wherever they carried their origo. In Rome itself, this was the name given to foreigners who honored their gods. They served as a kind of grain from which further qiasoi developed. Following the example of foreigners, slaves could gather to honor national gods and, over time, formed themselves into qiasoi. To do this, it was necessary to declare to the police authorities that a qiasos was being established in honor of one or another god, that there were primates (episkopoi) and elders (presbuteroi), that meetings would be held a certain number of times a month, etc. All these qiasoi made voluntary contributions to the treasury. Thus, with the advent of qiasoi, the persecution of Christians in form was increasingly weakened and, finally, changed so much that it can sometimes confuse people without legal education. So, some think that Gallien declared the Christian religion permissible: it did not happen at all. Under Gallienus, they enjoyed the complete security of loci religiosi, places where they gathered for prayer meetings, and Christian meetings were looked upon as qiasoi. There was no need to make any laws regarding Christian meetings; It was enough for the police to know how the supreme power treated them, and it was very easy to give permission for their existence. Representatives of the police authorities were not obliged to interrogate bishops and presbyters about religious beliefs, although sometimes they knew full well that they were talking to a Christian bishop. Their job was only to ensure that the form of the meetings was observed correctly, and not to enter into their content. Thus, Christian meetings under these conditions were already tolerant and did not have the character of a collegia illicita. This was the position of Christians from the point of view of form. It should be noted that there was more leniency for participation in heterias than for direct crimes against state power; The punishment itself did not always consist of death. In this case, there was a very correct gradation of punishments in Roman law. For the law there were "honestiores", beheaded with a sword, and "humiliores", representing a living body for the amphitheater. If the punishment was not accompanied by the death penalty, then the “humiliores” were subjected to exile, in less cases hard labor with light shackles, and for more severe punishment – ​​exile ad metallum; At the same time, they lost their rights to their property, which was subject to confiscation. If the punishment fell on the slave, then he broke ties with his master. Sometimes, instead of hard labor, there was exile to unhealthy Sardinia. If such punishment fell on one of the honestiores, then they suffered in the lesser case relegatio (the relegatus lost civil rights, but was recognized as the owner of his property: Trajan passed a law so that property would not be confiscated), and as a more severe punishment, in the case of exile to the island, deportatio (the deportatus lost all civil rights, his property and was thus subject to criminal punishment). Harassment by content. From this side, Christians could be persecuted 1) on the basis of purely random actions. The Romans did not encourage magic or witchcraft at all, equating them to such harmful acts as veneficium (poisoning). But many phenomena in Christian life were such that they could give rise to suspicion. The extraordinary facts of martyrdom during torture were incomprehensible to the pagans, who did not believe in the moral strength of the martyrs and thought that they were dealing with skilled magicians who rubbed themselves with some kind of ointments that made them able not to experience suffering. Some details of the acts of martyrdom, such as dousing with urine, had the character of a warning against magical actions. The most sacred books of Christians could be subsumed under the concept of “books of magicians.” And Roman law threatened to confiscate houses where such books were found; the books themselves were burned, and the magicians were crucified on the cross, or given to be devoured by wild beasts, or burned. Such accusations, having random grounds, could lead to persecution of Christians. 2) But if we take the very grain of Christianity, then the direct ground was created, the basis for the persecution of Christians by pagans. First of all, it could be proven that Christians do not honor the gods according to the law. Not only the XII tables, but also common law stated that a good sovereign must both honor the gods according to the laws and equally force his subjects to do so. The advice of Maecenas to Augustus is known. And since Christians refused to worship the gods, ipso facto they could always be accused of what the Greeks call aqeoths, and in the Roman language - sacrilegium (crime against religion). This is the first and most important crime of which Christians were accused. The Greek name for the crime against religion - aqeoths, atheism, does not fully express the true meaning of this concept, which is conveyed by the Latin word sacrilegium, sacrilege, violation of religious law, insult to a shrine. According to Roman law, those who robbed shrines (publica sacra), recognized as state ones, were found guilty of sacrilegium. This constituted a criminal offense - judicium capitale, according to which there was one less head in the state, because the culprit was either killed or went into exile - exilium. Exilium put a person in a position where return was impossible for him; the state forever deprived him of water and fire. But sacrilegium, as a criminal offense, allowed the following mitigation: the proconsul had the right to take into account the difference of persons, conditions of time, gender and age and thus could decide from possible sentences either a milder or a more severe one, but even the lightest punishment was quite severe. The word “sacrilegium” shows that in the concept of “atheism” it was not the positive aspect that came to the fore, not the conviction that there is no God, not atheism in the modern sense, but only the negative aspect, namely the actually revealed reluctance to honor the deity recognized by law in an appropriate manner. This external, purely legal moment was actually punishable. The analysis of the religious views of the “atheists” was not included: the mere fact that they did not honor the gods recognized by law was enough to bring the guilty under the laws of atheism. From this one can understand what was the weak side of all Christians’ assurances that they were not atheists, that they recognized the one true God: they did not defend themselves against what the government accused them of. When Christians were accused by the common people, ateoths had a direct and literal meaning; when the government accused, ateoths no longer had this meaning. Apologists usually defended themselves against ateoths in the popular sense, but were powerless against accusing them of sacrilegium. The state did not care about atheism in our sense of the word. It saw only sacrilegium, and the actual guilt of Christians in sacrilegium, according to Roman concepts, was beyond doubt. As you know, the law is always the law. By assigning punishment for a crime, he at the same time outlines the form of justification. When Christians proved, in refutation of the ateoths, that they are not atheists, that they honor one God and His Only Begotten Son, then they expressed the truth, which the law did not dispute. But ateoths in the sense of sacrilegium was a crime against the Roman cult. It accused Christians of not honoring the gods, and this fact could only be refuted by a fact, that is, by making a sacrifice to the gods, because the Roman understood religion not as an internal conviction, which is unprovable, but as a fact of external, ritual worship of the gods. The charge of atheism could easily fall on the pagans themselves. Even the Greeks combined the Roman concept with the concept of atheism and understood atheism as a refusal to make a sacrifice. It is known that Socrates was accused of atheism, but from his defensive speech it is clear that he honored the gods; therefore, those who refused to make sacrifices to the gods were considered atheists. Pythagoras was easily accused of atheism because, sharing the views of vegetarians, he did not want to sacrifice a bull; but he turned away because he sacrificed a bull made of dough. Lucian brings out a certain Demonax. When the latter was accused of not honoring the gods of his country, he defended himself only thanks to a brilliant speech, in which, among other things, he said: “I am accused of not making a sacrifice to the goddess. But I didn’t bring it because I thought the goddess didn’t need it.” The speech caused an explosion of applause. The easiest substitute for justifying oneself from accusations of atheism is an oath in the name of the gods. But since such an oath was contrary to the Christian conscience, its demand directly led Christians to death. 3) Crimen sacrilegii was a crime against religion, but it could also turn into a state crime. Those who refused to make sacrifices to the gods showed contempt for state power. Thus, a crime against religion turned into a crime against power, crimen laesae majestatis, which consisted in the fact that a person denied the supremacy of power in these matters. Crimen laesae majestatis included those crimes in which something was done against the Roman people and their security - those as a result of which armed people appeared in the city and took places in churches and other public institutions. Consequently, the concept of “crimen laesae majestatis” was quite definite. It was a crime that was closely related to another, designated by the concept “sacrilegium”. Previously, those guilty of this crime were deprived of water and fire, that is, they were expelled, because in this case it became impossible for the accused to stay in his city; and in Rome, Christians accused of this were given to be eaten by wild beasts or burned. However, here a distinction was made between persons called “honestiores” and “humiliores”; the first were executed by death by sword. Subsequently, the accusation of this crime was difficult in the sense that, naturally, one did not have to pay attention to either gender or age, because it was assumed that such a crime was committed by an adult and quite consciously. And since such a crime threatened the entire state, torture of the accused was allowed in this case. An exception was made here even for slaves. The testimony of slaves had no significance at all if they spoke out against their master, but their testimony was accepted if the slaves charged the master with crimen laesae majestatis and provided evidence. The distinctive aspect of the process of laesae majestatis in comparison with causa sacrilegii was that even noble persons were subjected to torture. In essence, in addition to the indicated logical transfer, these two crimes can be connected by one inextricable knot for another reason. The Roman emperor was not only the supreme guardian of the Roman “sacra”, but he was also god himself, not to mention the fact that the senate of emperors who became famous for something after their death ranked them among the host of gods and called them “divi”. The root of this view of the emperor did not lie in Roman ideas; it originates from the east. The ancient Egyptians looked upon their pharaohs as sons of the gods; the same view was practiced in Syria and among the Asian Greeks; the latter, in fact, were responsible for the spread of such a view among the Romans. Having fallen under the rule of Rome, they strongly developed the cult of the Augustans, built churches in honor of the Roman emperors, and established special priests who honored “deus Caesar et dea Roma.” From this it is clear that the position of Christians in the provinces was often more dangerous than in Rome itself, for there crimen sacrilegii could sooner turn into crimen laesae majestatis and entail great torture and torment. This side of laesae majestatis, lese majeste in the strict sense, was designated by the technical name impietas, asebeia - impiety. Impietas was a highly flexible concept, which sometimes included such petty actions that more noble rulers (Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Pertinax, Macrinus, Alexander Severus) either completely refused to accept the charge of impietas, or significantly mitigated the punishment for these crimes. To judge to what extent the application of this point of Roman law was petty, one can point to one fact: under Caracalla, several persons were convicted for daring to remove an old, withered wreath from the statue of the emperor in order to replace it with a new one. The oath of genius of the reigning sovereign soon became one of the most powerful assurances in the mouth of a loyal subject. Pouring wine and burning incense before the statue of the emperor became a self-evident duty of loyal subjects. For example, even the humane Pliny introduced the worship of the statue of Trajan in the province entrusted to him, although this sovereign was against the political cult and had an unfavorable attitude towards the oath in the name of Caesar, finding that it was more decent for the Romans to swear in the name of Jupiter. Many emperors, idolized during life, became one of the gods after death. And the more dangerous the political cult was at a time when people like Caligula or Domitian sat on the throne. In his last years, Caligula seriously believed in his divinity; In the church he stood between the statues of Castor and Pollux and demanded his proper service, and in official documents he titled himself Jupiter Latialis. He found a worthy imitator of himself in the person of Domitian. This one demanded that the edicts he issued begin with the words: “Dominus et deus nosier sic fieri jubet.” Even an accidental omission, due to forgetfulness, of this divine title entailed very serious consequences. One governor was brought to justice for not calling him “son of Athena” during public prayers to Domitian. Thus, in the political idolization of emperors we have a point where a state crime is intertwined into an inextricable knot with a religious one, where impietas in principem turns into aqeosis. Impietas was generally closely intertwined with crimes against religion. Namely: a) whoever did not burn incense in front of the statue of the sovereign did not recognize him as a god (aqeosis) and insulted him as a sovereign (impietas); b) whoever refused to honor the Roman gods did not recognize them (aqeosis) and offended the sovereign by disobedience to his law (impietas). But in a significant proportion of cases the charge of impietas preceded the charge of “irreligion.” Given the instability of religious beliefs, naturally, the wrath of Caesar seemed worse than the wrath of the gods. Tertullian caustically remarked that the pagans are more afraid of their Caesars than of the gods, and in this case they act completely logically, because a living god is more terrible than a dead tree. Given the political nature of the persecution of Christians for their beliefs, the crime of lese majeste, at least in the minds of the officials themselves, preceded the crime against religion as more important. Therefore, acts of martyrdom represent examples of such reasoning: 1) “honorate regem nostrum et sacrificate diis.” 2) “Omnes christiani, relicta superflua superstitione, cognoscant verum principem, cui omnia subjacent, et ejus deos adorent” (to be a Christian means, therefore, to be a bad subject, to worship the gods of the emperor means to be his faithful subject). 3) A martyr for refusing a sacrifice is executed as a “hostem publicum” (state criminal) on the grounds that “sprevisse templa respuisse est principem” (i.e. aqeosis is a crime because it is impietas). 4) Consular Martian, during the interrogation of Acacius, began the matter from its political side, that is, he posed the question in such a way that the crimen laesae majestatis preceded the crime sacrilegium. “As a loyal subject of the Roman sovereign, living under Roman laws,” he addressed the bishop, “you must, of course, love your sovereign.” The bishop replied: “Who loves the Roman emperor more than Christians, who pray day and night for the well-being of the sovereign, the army and the entire Roman Empire?” “I praise you for such a conviction,” said the consular, “but to make your loyalty to the emperor even clearer, make a sacrifice to him.” And when Akaki refused to sacrifice to the emperor, the question of sacrifice to the gods was raised. In the fact of Christians’ refusal to make sacrifices to the gods and swear in the name of Caesar, the Roman thus saw an indisputable basis for accusing Christians of a political crime. And how could Christians defend themselves against such accusations? The fact that they never took part in any rebellion or conspiracy, that they more than once declared themselves to be the most faithful subjects, that they constantly pray for Caesar, that on highly solemn days the houses of Christians are decorated with wreaths more than the houses of the pagans? All this, in Roman opinion, was not sufficient proof of the innocence of Christians. Roman law demanded that Christians pray not for the emperor, but to the emperor himself, so that they would not ask God for happiness for him, but would recognize “Caesarean happiness” as an accomplished fact. The very name of Caesar only as “lord” was, in the opinion of the Romans, a crime on the part of Christians. The full title of the Roman emperor: “Dominus et deus noster” (“Our Lord and God”), written even in official edicts, could not be shortened with impunity. Thus, from this side too, the Romans had reason to suspect Christians of a political crime, and the whole process, says the German lawyer Sohm, was so directed that they were found guilty of it. If some half-maniac in Hungary had come to the conclusion that the use of stamps leads to lese majeste, since it is accompanied by branding of the images of the sovereign on them, and had offered the post office even a lot of money for freeing his letters from such branding, then no attention would have been paid to his statements. Officials could answer such a person that they are implementing the law and are not at all interested in his inner mood. The Roman state treated Christians in a similar way: it did not care that Christians prayed for Caesar, considered themselves his faithful subjects, since this was not proven in its usual external way, and punished Christians when they were at least formally violators of the law. But in reality, as mentioned above and as Tertullian, who was, according to Mommsen, a lawyer, noted, the government’s attitude towards Christians suffered from extreme inconsistency. From a logical point of view, Tertullian is absolutely right. But such contradictions occur very often in life, and life resolves them in its own way. The Roman government considered the fight against Christians a game not worth the candle. After all, many Romans knew that there were times when a person died like a fly, when the emperor executed his wife for just changing clothes in front of his statue, when they were executed for removing a faded wreath from the emperor’s statue in order to replace it with a fresh one, etc. On the other hand, Christians gave absolutely no reason to accuse them of rebellion or rebellion. But at the same time, the Roman was an adherent of form and did not tolerate its violation. Forms of legal proceedings against Christians Everyone understands that for a well-known act the court determines exile to hard labor or imprisonment, but they still know that, for example, our peasant is ready to spend 1.5 weeks in prison rather than be expelled by the police for three months from St. Petersburg. Thus, here we can distinguish between the court of the court itself and the court of administration. Roman Christians also had to reckon with these two functions, and in many cases it turned out that Christians who shed blood for the name of Christ were victims not of justice, but of the Roman administration, which was expressed in Roman language by the term “jus coercitionis” - the right to curb. This fact has recently been brought to light by Mommsen in his above-mentioned article. Although any jus coercitionis was often accompanied by arbitrariness, nevertheless, for Christians it was no more difficult than strict justice, since it allowed for a greater possibility of mitigating the punishment. The court in its own sense was an inconvenience due to its strict formalism. There is a known case that the praetor objected to a person who presented only one witness and pointed out the dignity of the latter: “Where the law requires two witnesses, I cannot accept one, even if it were Marcus Porcius Cato himself.” Observance of the form of conducting business was no less strict. The plaintiff had to enter ad acta that so-and-so wishes to deal with so-and-so in such-and-such a case on the basis of such-and-such a law. From that time on, he could no longer stop doing things. From that moment on, the litigants, as the Roman jurists put it, were “in actis haerebant,” that is, they were stuck in acts, and if the plaintiff had deliberately weakened the evidence he had presented earlier, he would have been tried for backtracking. It should be noted that, according to Roman law, a lawsuit could not be initiated otherwise than on the basis of the law alone, and one had to be a very skilled lawyer to see which of the similar laws should be given precedence in a certain case. Moreover, the Roman court did not know of such an official whose duties would be the prosecution of criminal offenses (prosecutor). Criminal prosecution was a matter of private prosecution, and something too outrageous had to be done for the prosecution to be brought without private prosecution, on the initiative of the government itself. At the same time, the initiation of legal proceedings, as required by Roman law, could only be carried out by one private person. Two prosecutors were not allowed in the same case. Coercitio is a simplified form of legal proceedings in all respects. True, compliance with formalities, for example, a preliminary statement, was required here too, but the plaintiff did not lose anything from the inaccuracy of the wording, since it depended on the authority of the official how to direct the matter. But most importantly, the official himself had the right, on his own initiative, to begin an investigation, which was carried out to the extent that this person found it necessary; Moreover, both in the inquiry, and in the measure of punishment, and in the punishment itself, the power producing the coercitio was not bound by law. Therefore, phenomena were sometimes possible here that were completely impossible in court. Lucian tells how one rogue appeared before the tribunal, declaring himself a Christian. The official, having learned that this rogue was only counting on making a sensation, drove him away from the tribunal, and no confession took place. Tertullian testifies that some provincial leaders knew how to conduct business in such a way that Christians in their provinces lived in safety. One of them even gave a formula on hand for how a Christian had to answer in court so that he (the judge) would be able to release him. Obviously, the matter concerned generalities that would have shown that the matter was not worth pursuing further. Thus, during the period of persecution we see, on the one hand, a strictly formal trial, which for Christians ended in execution or, at least, exile, and on the other, a trial without observing formalities, almost entirely dependent on the arbitrariness of officials. The form of coercitio was used more and more when Christianity came forward. The heads of the provinces were charged with the duty of pursuing in this way various kinds of people harmful to society; the latter category included, for example, robbers, people involved in catching living people to sell them into slavery, etc. Therefore, for Christians, the personal views of the local leaders of one or another province, as well as the views of the central government, were very important. And it often happened that while fierce persecution was being waged against them in one province, in another they lived in complete peace and security. It also happened that provincial leaders, even hostile to Christians, did not take any repressive measures against them if they knew that the mood of the central government was contrary to their personal one. 3) Attitude to Christianity of the intelligentsia The third factor in the persecution of Christians, which manifested itself later, when Christianity had already existed for a long time and when society had already formed a certain view of it, was the intelligentsia. In the vast majority of cases she was hostile to Christians, and for good reason. Roman culture cannot be rated low: what a superficial glance can attribute to the influence of Christianity was prepared by pagan writers who advocated high humanity in their writings and spoke out against slavery. For example, Seneca has so many bright thoughts that some Christians, reading the excellent pages of his works, in their naivety, could not admit that it was possible to have such lofty ideas without any acquaintance with Christianity. Correspondence between Seneca and the Apostle Paul appeared, which was, of course, forged. Out of a sense of humanity, the intelligentsia was against the persecution of Christians as an expression of brute force, but not against the very destruction of Christians, as people, in their opinion, harmful to public well-being. If the first times of the existence of Christianity passed relatively unnoticed, then at least by the beginning of the 2nd century there was already a view of Christians that these are people who are rightly hated for their vices and accused of hatred of the human race (Tacitus). The “human race” meant the cultural world. It should be noted that among the intelligentsia there was a category of people who were extremely superficial. When vile accusations against Christians began to subside among the people, people like Fronton appeared who still propagated these accusations. We find a complete set of the latter in the “Octavia” of Minucius Felix. But even if the category of these people can be left aside, it still cannot be said that hostility towards Christians among the intelligentsia was limited to them alone. Even truly highly educated people were far from friendly towards Christians when they focused their attention on the ugly phenomena taking place among them. Thus, some Christians, recognizing that the statues were not gods, as if there could be any doubt about this among any of the intelligentsia, smashed them and thereby gave rise to accusations of gross intolerance towards art. Kels quotes the words of a Christian: “I can break your gods; They won’t do anything to me.” Origen admits that Kels may have heard a similar expression from modern Christians. Christianity, indeed, was a kingdom not of this world - to such an extent it differed from the then dominant spirit of the cultural world. If an educated, cultured person lost faith in everything, if he had no religion, only fragments of it remained, yet he firmly believed in Roman culture, the power of Rome, in its high significance for the world, for civilization. Even many who converted to Christianity were so imbued with this idea that a famous passage from the Epistle to Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians) was explained in such a way that the Antichrist cannot come while Rome exists. This idea is fully expressed in the famous verse of Horace: “Bright sun, may you never see anything higher than Rome.” There was ample reason for such enthusiasm. Not inclined, however, to Christianity, but authoritative in everything related to Rome, Mommsen rightly noted that if the angel of God had summed up the history of mankind and compared all eras from the point of view of their culture, then the palm would have to be given to the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century, for never had the government been so concerned about the welfare and enlightenment of its subjects as at this time. If the aristocrats groaned that power was eluding them, then in the provinces they willingly worshiped the goddess Roma and the god Caesar, from whom a source of blessings flowed upon them. Naturally, ancient man could treasure Roman culture endlessly; in Christians, he saw people alien to this culture, indifferent or even hostile towards it. Christians rejected Roman culture in total. These deniers of Roman culture do not go to the desert, they live in society, and raise their children to hate Roman culture. The question was raised: what threat does Christianity pose to the future of culture? Christians contrasted the above verse of Horace with their own: “Thy kingdom come,” that is, let Rome end with all its culture. Too few could understand that Christianity in this regard is hostile not only to Rome, but to the entire pagan world. It must be admitted that the Christians of that time were not careful. Often rumors arose among Christians that the end of the world would come soon; Some Christians said with gloating that soon all of Rome and its culture would collapse and terrible horrors would befall its inhabitants - these enlightened people. If, therefore, Christianity threatened the future of culture, then in the present Christians sometimes committed antics similar to those indicated by Kels, which outraged the pagans. Thus, on the one hand, there is a strong desire for Rome with its culture to exist forever, and on the other, the expectation of a new kingdom, for the opening of which the existence of Rome was only an obstacle. Christians were therefore viewed as enemies of culture and political life. The entire educated world of that time was drawn into the political life of his fatherland, and perhaps the intelligent Greek of that time did not feel anything more painfully than the fact that the Romans, who defeated the Greeks and gave them greater rights of self-government, did not give them the right to participate in politics, so that the Greek did not have a fatherland for which it would be worth dying, for he was deprived of the opportunity to take part in the political life of his country. Not so with Christians. Christians were indifferent to politics and shunned it so fundamentally that even Tertullian said that Christianity was so wonderful that even emperors would become Christians if the world could be without emperors or if emperors could be Christians. Thus, Christianity and the state, in the eyes of Christians, were incompatible concepts. The pagans were strangely impressed by the fact that Christians shied away from holding public positions. In this regard, their complete indifference to public interests was expressed. With this deviation from public activity, Christians seemed to be a genus tertium; “This is some kind of third generation, a special generation,” the pagans said about them. The same indifference to public interests was expressed by Christians when electing emperors. They preferred not to speak out in favor of one or another of the contenders for the Roman throne and not to present their own. In vain did Christians point out their political reliability and the fact that they did not take part in any revolution. Even this was blamed on them, since, in the opinion of the Roman people, they turned out to be shamefully indifferent to political good and evil. The pagan intelligentsia and Christians differed sharply in their judgments about the emperors who reigned at that time and their predecessors. The best emperors were persecutors of Christians; The personally wicked found sympathy for themselves in a Christian society that was not persecuted by them. Commodus was hated by the pagan Romans and fell at the hands of an assassin, but Christians lived easily under him. Heliogabalus, about whom nothing good can be said as a ruler, did not persecute Christians. Alexander Severus, about whom opinions fluctuated, was in the eyes of Christians an ideal sovereign. Philip the Arabian, known only for the fact that during his reign the millennium of Rome was celebrated, was considered by Christians to belong to their society. Gallian, who stood on the path to tyranny, was the best sovereign for Christians. The relationship of Christians to the Roman Empire and its culture was such that a pagan could only recoil from Christians. Kels exposed Christians as an illegal society, as conspirators, not in a political, but in a general cultural sense. Origen, in his essay against him, answered the question: “You do not recognize all the laws of the state, therefore you are opponents of the laws, conspirators against the state, harmful to public welfare?” – does not give a direct answer. Understanding the meaning of the question, he does not answer with an unfounded denial, but develops such an idea. “Imagine,” he says, “that an enlightened Hellene falls into slavery among barbarians, among barbarians where society is not at all organized. He was accustomed to all the conditions of cultural life. Can he be charged with a crime if he causes outrage in order to introduce a new order?” The purpose of Origen's defense is good, but, in the end, the pagan thesis that Christians are conspirators was not refuted. Origen, in fact, had the courage to answer that the society of Christians could be considered an illegal society. He distinguished between natural law, which cannot be violated, and civil, political law, which can and should sometimes be violated. As a Greek, Origen said that conspiracies can and should be made against tyrants. Christians could be considered lawbreakers because they fought against a common tyrant - the devil. But someone who rebelled, for example, against the ugliness of the Scythian laws, obviously cannot be condemned for this from a universal human point of view. Such reasoning, however, could hardly have a calming effect on the pagans. Origen belonged to an even more peaceful faction of Christians. But there were also preachers among Christians who energetically advocated a complete break with culture. Tertullian rebelled against New Year greetings. Further, Christians shocked themselves in the eyes of pagan society by refusing to participate in funeral feasts. Indeed, how could they look at people who refused to pay their last respects to someone who enjoyed general respect during his lifetime? Consistent people went further: they began to deny the possibility of reconciling Christianity and the existing system of state life. The more often voices were heard about such intransigence, the more right the pagans considered themselves to look at Christians as a “genus tertium”. Dozens of years had to pass before Christians could be looked at and Christians themselves could survive the crisis and come to the conviction that the world would have to exist for a long time; Then only the opportunity arose to clarify aspects of pagan culture and Christianity that opened up access to their mutual unification. Thus, Christianity reckoned with three hostile forces. The providential side of this was that all these forces did not act against Christianity at once, but one by one, and seemed to moderate each other by their mutual opposition and neutralization. At first, the people, with the indifference of the intelligentsia and restrained by state power, opposed Christianity. Then the state came forward, with the vague attitude of intelligent society, saying, on the one hand, that Christians are harmful people, but, on the other, that measures against them are unnecessary. Only under Diocletian we have the combined action of all three forces, but this was the death blow of dying paganism to Christianity. From all that has been said, it is clear that the persecutions were not mass beatings and were carried out on legal grounds, and did not arise in Rome ex abrupto. 3. History of persecution. Classification Now the previously held scheme, according to which there were 10 persecutions, is already falling out of use. This figure has no solid historical basis (they can be counted either more or less). It appeared quite a long time ago, but only because they wanted to coincide with the 10 Egyptian plagues or the 10 horns of the apocalyptic beast. Further, it is difficult to accurately determine the characteristics of the persecution of Christians in each known reign. But, in general, everyone agrees that Christians originally lived under the cover of the permitted Jewish religion and, as such, were not persecuted by the government. This state of affairs was replaced under Trajan by the fact that Christians were recognized as followers of an unlawful religion and, in principle, declared subject to punishment, but the initiative of persecution was given by the state to society itself. Finally, the last period of persecution, from Decius, is characterized by the fact that the government itself takes the initiative in the persecution of Christians. Thus, the history of the persecution of Christians falls into three periods: the first extends to the time of Trajan, the second to Decius, and the third to the end of the persecution. Period one. Church sub umbraculo religionis licitae (judaicae) under the cover of the permitted religion (Jewish) The first period, according to most scientists, embraces the time from the beginning of Christianity to the reign of Emperor Trajan. What was the attitude of the emperors towards Christianity in this early period of the existence of Christianity? On what basis do they meet each other, and when did the state recognize the real character of its enemy? When did the persecution actually begin? Usually, chronologically, the persecution under Nero is considered to be the first; but was it possible then to persecute Christians for the very name of Christ? In essence, it is easy to admit that Christians at that time were simply victims of a misunderstanding and would have been persecuted even if they were not Christians, but adhered to another religion, but not the Roman one; they could be persecuted simply as foreigners. It is necessary to find out whether by the year 64 it was possible for the Roman authorities to have a conscious attitude towards the Christian issue? There is no doubt that, as Tertullian aptly put it, the church acted under the cover of a permitted religion, namely the Jewish one. Since Christians recruited proselytes mainly among the Jews or on the ground that was prepared by the latter, it was natural to confuse them with the Jews and take them for a Jewish sect. The situation of Christians before the persecution under Nero History has preserved no trace of the mutual relationship between Christianity and emperors during the reigns of the first two emperors, Tiberius (14–37) and Caius Caligula (37–41). The news that Tiberius, having received a report about Jesus Christ from Pilate, wanted to rank Him among the Roman gods, does not have the nature of a historical fact and hardly deserves refutation, without a single hint in history. Christians were first persecuted during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41–54), but together with the Jews and as a result of mixing with them. Friendly towards the Jewish king Herod Agrippa, to whom he even owed part of his throne, Claudius in the first year of his reign (41), taking measures against the restless Jewish population, limited himself to banning religious meetings in Rome. The most devout Jews now recognized their position in Rome as impossible and moved out of the capital. Already to the time after the death of Herod Agrippa, i.e. after the year 44, another measure must be attributed, which only Suetonius speaks about, namely, that he then “expelled the Jews, causing unrest and unrest at the initiative of Christ, from Rome” (Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit). In this historical evidence one can feel the first trace of a direct clash between the emperor and Christianity, although, however, this interpretation is disputed by many scientists. Some emphasize only that the testimony of Suetonius on the very essence of the matter is unclear. Suetonius undoubtedly knew Christians as a special religious society and would have spoken more clearly if he had these Christians in mind at this time. Others even suggest that at that time some rebel Chrestus actually appeared in Rome, acting among the Jews. This interpretation is closest to the letter of the text of the news; but history knows of no such rebel. Therefore, the vast majority of scientists believe that “Chrestus” means Christ. Suetonius wrote when Christians were already known under their own name, but it is undeniable that Jesus Christ was sometimes called Chrest. This name (Chrestus, not Christus) is explained by the oscillation between ancient etacism and new itacism. And, in any case, “Chrestos” (Crhstos - useful) in the mouths of the Greeks sounded clearer than “Christ” (Cristos). The Hebrew "Masiah" and the Syriac "Msiha" are more consistent with the Greek hleimmenos - anointed, while cristos means rubbed, anointed. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that this is about some special Cross, and not about Jesus Christ. A plausible and witty assumption has been made that in this case the Jews paid for the Apostolic Council (Langen). At this council, the issue of the optionality of circumcision was resolved and a complete break was made between Jews and Christians; After this, the question of Christ was very animatedly debated in the Roman synagogues, and here the name of Christ was loudly pronounced, which gave reason to suspect the appearance of some kind of agitator among the Jews; To stop these unrest among the Jews, the Roman authorities were forced to expel both Jews and Christians at the same time. This incident falls in the time period between 51 and 54. and does not at all show that in Rome at that time they had an idea about Christianity and its character, and that at this time the Roman government quite clearly distinguished Christians from Jews. Such a clear distinction cannot be assumed for a later time, when the persecution of Nero fell upon Christians: it would be in poor harmony with some of the facts of that time known to us from apostolic history that preceded the persecution. It is enough, in fact, to recall some of the circumstances described in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. All of them fall precisely on the reign of Nero (54–68). The first incident, recorded in Acts 18:12–17, took place in Corinth. The Apostle Paul, accused by the Jews, was brought to trial by the Roman proconsul Gallio. The Jews accused Paul of teaching people to honor God outside the law. But the proconsul did not allow Paul to defend himself and refused to conduct the trial in which he did not want to be a judge. He did not see anything in Paul's behavior for which he should be prosecuted by law. The whole matter, in the eyes of the proconsul, was a religious dispute within the boundaries of Judaism, in which he had neither the duty nor the desire to interfere, and the Jews did not explain that Paul stood outside the permitted Jewish religion. Another incident is described in Acts 21:27 et al. The commandant of Jerusalem, Claudius Lysias, in the same way, on the accusation of the Jews, captured the Apostle Paul, but only because he mistook him for an Egyptian rebel. It soon became clear, however, that the subject of the apostle’s quarrel with the Jews was purely religious. But Lysias does not free Paul, as Gallio did, because the riot of the whole of Jerusalem is not at all like the street riots of the Corinthian Jews. At the same time, Lysias does not even suspect that the apostle stands outside the boundaries of permitted Judaism: he submits him to the court of the Sanhedrin, and the apostle himself accepted such a statement of the matter. The commandant only understood that the dispute was over religion and was purely Jewish, and that in Paul there was no guilt worthy of imprisonment or death. With this report, he sent Paul to further trial. At the trial before the procurator Anthony Felix (Acts 24), no more than that was revealed. The Jews, however, call the apostle a representative of the “Nazarene heresy,” but they want to judge him according to their law. The apostle does not deny the fact of belonging to the “Nazarene heresy”, but rejects the accusation of this by citing the fact that even now he stands, in essence, on the basis of the Jewish religion, serves the God of the fathers, believing everything written in the law and the prophets. From this entire conversation, Felix could take no more than that this was a religious dispute between Jews. Felix expressed a desire to learn more about this teaching, but the process stopped there for now. Porcius Festus, even after talking with the Jews, did not find out anything more for himself, except that it was a religious dispute (Acts 25:18–19). Even after the apostle's conversation with Agrippa, the final opinion of the procurator was that Paul had no guilt worthy of imprisonment or death, and that if he had not demanded a trial from Caesar, he could have been released (Acts 26:31–32). Thus, in 58–60. representatives of the Roman authorities not only did not know in advance, but even after a long procedure they still did not know that they were facing the fact of a new religion, not permitted by Roman law, and these “Nazarenes” seemed to them one of the many sects into which the permitted Jewish religion was falling apart. And having appeared in Rome in the spring of 61, the apostle enjoyed freedom to preach his teaching. Thus, even those who served in Palestine itself, and therefore had more opportunities to become acquainted with the true character of Christianity, did not understand its essence and did not distinguish it from Judaism. It must be considered even less plausible that after just four years, in the very capital of the Roman Empire, the government was able to conduct a trial against Christians precisely for religion, and conduct it in such a way as not to affect a single Jew. The more or less detailed news of Tacitus (Annal. XV, 44) about the persecution of Christians under Nero that has survived to us contains quite a lot of unclear things. This persecution was initiated due to a completely private circumstance. On the night of July 18-19 (from Wednesday to Thursday, and not on the Jewish Saturday, and at a time when there could not be a new moon), 64, a fire broke out in Rome. First, the shops surrounding Circus Maximus caught fire. The flames raged uncontrollably for 6 days and 7 nights, and the last outbreaks died down only after 10 days. Of the 14 parts of the city, only four survived, three parts burned to the ground, and in seven there were few traces of houses, broken and half-burnt. Nero was not in the city at that time: he was in Antium and arrived when his golden palace was burning. He tried to alleviate the plight of the victims. But, despite this, popular rumor stubbornly accused him of arson; There were rumors that Nero, from a nearby hill, enjoyed the spectacle of the fire and, while playing the lute, sang the fire of Troy among those close to him. To reject this rumor, Nero identified other arsonists and began the famous trial against Christians. The commission opened its meetings several weeks after the fire. “In order to drown out this rumor,” says Tacitus, “Nero exposed as the culprits people whom the people already hated for their vices and called Christians. The founder of this party, Christ, during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by death by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the first time, now this evil sect (superstitio exitiabilis) has appeared again, and not only in Judea, but also in the capital, where everything that is unnatural (atrocia) and shameful flocks and loudly declares itself. Thus, first those who recognized themselves as Christians (correpti qui fatebantur) were captured, and then, on their instructions (indicio), many people were captured, who were convicted (convicti sunt) not so much of arson as of hatred of the human race.” It was them who Nero subjected to exquisite executions. And “although these people were guilty, they aroused pity and compassion for themselves, because they died not for the common good, but to satisfy the cruel whim of one (tyrant).” Since Suetonius speaks about this very briefly (Nero, 16), the story of Tacitus turns out to be the only source. The main features of the story are clear; But scientists differ on the details. There are two extreme interpretations. Some (Weizsacker and others) believe that the trial under Nero was a persecution of Christians in the proper sense, a persecution for their religion, which is precisely the point at which Tacitus strikes as the decisive outcome of the trial against Christians. “Those who confessed were arrested and punished.” Recognition (fateri), obviously of belonging to Christianity, was the beginning of the process itself (correptio). To suggest that Christians would confess to arson and, as a result, be brought to justice, would be incredible. It is also highly characteristic that in this entire trial there is no mention of the Jews: Christians stand as a completely different sect from the Jews, and this is possible precisely when the trial is carried out because of religion. The fact that this blow did not affect a single Jew (although there was a completely sufficient reason for this: the Jewish quarters did not burn down) serves, according to the representatives of this view, as evidence in favor of their theory that at that time the Roman government very clearly distinguished Christians from Jews and recognized the former as followers of an unlawful religion. On the contrary, others (Schiller and his followers) prove just the opposite: that this process was directed against Jews in general, and not against Christians, that the whole process in this whole process was only about fire, and not about religion, and if the process received a shade of religious persecution, it happened simply because Tacitus, who lived later than Nero, when Christians were already known as followers of an unlawful, harmful sect, transferred the features of his time to the events of Nero’s reign. Thus, the entire persecution of Nero, according to this view, is the most ordinary persecution of people harmful to society - arsonists, and in other details it is implausible. Criticism of both opinions and an accurate analysis of Tacitus's account leave room for a more reliable middle path. Scientists want to find out the question: what was the process and why were the Christians executed, whether for setting fire to Rome or for calling themselves Christians. Tacitus put it vaguely: “those who were recognized (qui fatebantur) were punished.” Obviously, nothing can be extracted from the text, and therefore several assumptions must be made. The most favorable assumption for Tacitus would be that he studied the matter of Christians using more fully compiled news, and if it is expressed unclearly, then the reason for this is either his aristocratic contempt for Christians, due to which he did not consider it necessary to express himself fully and accurately about this matter, or it was unclear in the documents themselves. Thus, the question must be raised: how were these documents compiled? The starting point for the author of the news used by Tacitus could have been simply popular rumor blaming Nero for the arson, who wanted to build a new capital to his liking on the ruins of Rome. Here one of two things is possible: either Nero really set fire to Rome through dummies, or he did not set fire. If he participated in the arson, then there could be no question of the actual culprits of the fire. Nero himself understood perfectly well that it was impossible to find them, and if he gave orders to search for the perpetrators, it was solely in order to reject the rumor of his guilt and to find people in whose guilt the crowd could easily believe. But if Nero did not set the fire, he understood that there was no reason to think that the crowd could distinguish right from wrong; The people might not believe in the guilt of the actual culprits. It was necessary to find such persons in whose guilt everyone would easily believe. It is clear that there can be no talk of justice here. It goes without saying that if Nero, placed in the position in which he found himself, gave the order to find the guilty, then the accused, even if innocent, should have been found. Nero did not stand on ceremony with justice so much as to leave the case without investigation due to the absence of those responsible. The Roman police should have found them if the order was given. It was necessary to start with the scum of society, with those individuals who were more or less defenseless; It was not right for the senators to start the accusation. The position of the judges was difficult: the fire started in that part of the city where the poorest people lived (like the Vyazemsk Lavra in St. Petersburg) and foreigners. Since the poor themselves suffered from the fire, it would be incredible to suspect them of arson, and it was necessary to find persons, mostly malicious. The question is, was the persecution directed against the Jews, unloved by the Romans? But this is impossible, because they were patronized by Nero’s wife Poppaea Sabina, a Jewish proselyte, and thereby in corpore they were placed outside persecution. But this does not mean that not a single Jew suffered, because she could not know all the Jews and could not defend the right and the wrong. In a word, it was impossible to raise persecution against the Jews as Jews. But it was possible to start the interrogation with the Jews. In the mostly unreliable, forged correspondence between the Apostle Paul and the philosopher Seneca, there is one letter that concerns this process. It is replete with factual details that make us assume that in this case the author had some truly historical sources at hand. There is an interesting testimony there: “Christians and Jews, as usually happens, were executed by death as the culprits of the fire.” In view of this, there is no basis to assert that the Jews really did not suffer anything from this fire. Obviously, there was no particular biased view of catching only Christians. The case began with the fact that “those who confessed” were put on trial. But those in their right mind could never confess to a crime. Christians could not commit a crime due to their religious beliefs. But those who committed the crime could not admit to it either, because they knew what punishment awaited them. But it is also impossible to admit that the Roman police were so stupid as to directly raise the question of arson, because the answer could always only be negative. And therefore, indirect questions were proposed, where an answer that was indifferent in itself could serve as evidence. A Christian was asked: where were you on such and such a night? We do not know where the place of worship of the first Christians was located; it is possible that it was placed in a burned-out part of the city, where on the night of the fire Christians could gather, for example, to commemorate some influential member of the Christian community, celebrate the anniversary of the death of a person to whom they owe something, and on this occasion perform agapes; and if a Christian was asked whether he was there on such and such a night, he could answer with a clear conscience: yes. And the concept fateri does not express anything more than the fact that the answer to the proposed question is: yes. But this was enough for the Roman authorities to find the Christians guilty. To prove that they did not set fire to the city, Christians could point to witnesses and bona fide could list those who participated in the service; hence the incredible fact of Christian denunciations against other members of the community. They did not suspect what their confession would lead to, but cited names to prove their innocence; for such crimes are committed secretly, by individuals, and not at all en masse, which involves publicity. In general, indirect evidence was launched against Christians that these were people who had odium generis humani, misanthropes, who, therefore, could commit arson. The investigation, obviously, provided much more material for accusing Christians not of the fire, but of hatred of the human race. Thus, the process that began with the arson investigation little by little took on a religious overtones, although the question of the permissibility or impermissibility of the Christian religion was not raised in all its principled form. Thus, it should be recognized that religion served, if not the reason, then at least the legal basis for the beginning of this process. They were looking for arsonists; but the Roman police themselves of that time needed a sign by which to look for these arsonists, and they hoped to discover them in the ranks of the followers of some suspicious religion, who themselves confessed to belonging to this society. Therefore, under Nero, Christians suffered for the name of Christ. But they could also be prosecuted as foreigners. Their testimony may not have been a direct confession of Christianity. And if they did not hide the fact that they were Christians, then this served only as an intermediate link in their accusation; for in any case they were accused of arson. The brutalized people are trying to throw those accused of arson into the fire; therefore, in fulfillment of this will of the people, they were sewn into tarred clothes and lit in the form of torches to illuminate the imperial gardens during public festivities. Thus, at both the beginning and the end we have a prosecution for arson. This persecution was the persecution of people who are accused by the laws of all states, but it did not come to direct persecution for the name of Christ, for nomen ipsum. We are dealing here with a miscarriage of justice that was not unintentional. The expression of Tacitus: Nero subdidit reos (framed the guilty), may mean that Nero gave a general instruction. The persecution of Christians, or, more precisely, the process of the Roman fire under Nero, began no earlier than August 64 and could only be in September of this year. More cautious historians think that the persecution under Nero did not last particularly long. Some now believe that the whole matter was limited to the persecution in Rome in 64 and did not even continue until 65. From the very fact of the arson it is clear that the persecution could only apply to all Christians living in Rome and its environs, but could not be universal 5 . Church tradition connects the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul with the persecution of Nero. The chronology of both facts remains very controversial. Those scholars who assume that the persecution was limited to the walls of Rome and did not continue even until the year 65 are naturally forced to attribute the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul to the year 64. But those who are inclined to think that the persecution lasted several years attribute the martyrdom of one Paul or both apostles to the following years, most often to the year 67. The very question of the stay of the Apostle Peter in Rome is resolved differently. If Catholics hold an opinion about Peter’s 25-year stay in Rome, then Old Catholics completely deny his presence there. But the fact of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome has been attested so long ago and by so many witnesses that there is no way to deny it. That the Apostle Peter died at this time is not impossible, because the very form of his crucifixion upside down speaks of the subtle torment of execution. But regarding the Apostle Paul there is a firm church tradition that he died the death of a Roman citizen; during the massacre that took place under Nero, hardly anyone would have remembered the Roman citizenship of the Tarsus Jew. I think that he died much earlier, in 62. The fact that in our time in all Christian churches they are commemorated on June 29 cannot serve as an indication of the time of their death, because this date marks the transfer of the relics. The so-called second persecution of Christians took place in the last years of the reign of Domitian (81–96). Titus Flavius ​​Domitian was one of the most suspicious sovereigns the Roman Empire knew. He was constantly inclined to fear conspiracies and, perhaps, under none of the Roman emperors did philosophers and people in general who for some reason seem suspicious live in Rome as badly as under this sovereign. Quite a number of senators of the old Roman way of thinking were executed or expelled. The property of those executed was taken to the treasury; their relatives and wives were expelled. The following fact stands in connection with this political suspicion of the emperor. The Davidites, that is, the descendants of David who lived in Jerusalem, seemed suspicious to Domitian. As members of the ancient Jewish house, it seemed to Domitian that they could naturally make some claim to the Jewish throne. Therefore, among others, the grandchildren (uiwnoi, in Rufinus nepotes) of Judas, a relative (adeljou) of Jesus Christ, were summoned to Rome. But when these Jews showed that their entire property consisted of nine thousand denarii, and not in cash, but in real estate in the form of 39 plephras of land, for which they paid taxes and which they cultivated with their own hands, then the emperor saw that such pretenders, with calloused hands, even if they had the thought of rights to the throne, could not be dangerous for him; therefore he released them without any further persecution (Eus. h. e. III, 20, from Hegisippus). Another characteristic feature of Domitian's reign was the fiscal measures taken to replenish the depleted imperial treasury. The depletion of this treasury was natural: the reign of Nero alone was extremely costly for Rome. Nero wanted to be generous, and generous to the point of madness. He gave one of his favorites 2.5 million denarii for the most insignificant service. His mother, wanting to keep him from such reckless spending, ordered all the donated silver and gold to be collected and shown to Nero; but the latter, seeing the heap brought and learning that all the donated money was here, said: “I didn’t know that there was so little here - add another half.” With such insane spending, it was necessary to resort to measures such as lowering the value of the coin and imposing new taxes. Among the new taxes introduced at this time is the “fiscus judaicus”, which degenerated from the tax on the Jerusalem temple, which, in fact, only the firstborn were supposed to pay, but in fact all Jews contributed. As if in mockery of the religion of the Jews, they were forced to pay this tax (didrachma = 50.2888 kopecks. gold) on the Church of Jupiter Capitolinus. To get rid of this tax, many renounced Judaism, although they were circumcised. In order to avoid such difficulties, which were disadvantageous for the emperor, it was ordered that those suspected of Judaism be subjected to a medical examination in order to find out whether he had been circumcised or not. Many who had no close relationship with Judaism paid taxes as soon as they were suspected of Judaism, just to avoid inspection. This order of collection made this tax hateful not only for the Jews, but also for the entire Roman people, so that, after the death of Domitian, in honor of his successor Nerva, the grateful Senate knocked out a coin with the inscription: “For the abolition of slander due to the Jewish fiscus” (fisci judaici calumnia sublata). In the interests of replenishing the state treasury, Domitian turned to the persecution in general of those who adhered to the Jewish religion without a statement (improfessi judaicam viverent vitam, Sueton. Domit. 12). Thus, the persecution was not of a religious nature. Although with the fall of Jerusalem the very foundation for the existence of the Jewish religion ceased to exist, the government did not undertake religious persecution against the Jews. It persecuted only those who strayed (exokellontes, according to Cassius Dio) into Judaism without making a preliminary statement about it (improfessi). In all likelihood, these “improfessi” meant not only Jews (by origin), but also Christians mixed with Jews, so it is quite possible that the unpleasant fiscal measure constantly affected Christians as well. Those who openly recognized themselves as Jews and unquestioningly agreed to make contributions to the Church of Jupiter Capitolinus were not persecuted by the government. Thus, the government only needed to find those who lived a Jewish lifestyle without declaring it. The Jewish tax was exacted from circumcision. Christians, as not belonging to the circumcision, understandably refused to pay, as a result of which, naturally, attention was drawn to them. When the investigation revealed that many of the Christians were not of Semitic origin, that Christianity did not live naturally, but was supported through proselytism, they were persecuted. Thus, if under Domitian Christians were persecuted, it was on an equal basis with Jews. At the same time, we can talk about the persecution of Christians under Domitian only in the last 8 months of his reign. One accidental circumstance has made this persecution the subject of special attention among scholars of modern times. The pagan Greek historian Dio Cassius, in the section on the persecution of Domitian, which has not survived to us, but has come down to us in the later retelling of John Xyphilinus, says that under Domitian at the very beginning of 96, the consul of the past 95 year, Titus Flavius ​​Clement, a relative of the emperor, was executed on charges of “aqeoths”. According to Suetonius, he was executed for the greatest negligence in the performance of his duties (contemptissima ignavia). The wife of the executed man, Flavia Domitilla, also a relative of the emperor, was exiled, according to some sources, to the island of Pandateria, according to others - to Pontia. This Titus Flavius ​​was the cousin of Domitian, who predicted his son to be the heir to the throne. The trial against Flavius ​​Clement also affected other persons who adopted Jewish customs and deviated from the Jewish religion. Some of them were executed by death, others had their property confiscated, and others were exiled. Glabrion (consul of 91) was also executed, on charges that, however, had nothing to do with atheism. Scientists of our time express very witty thoughts regarding this Clement. Thus, some identify him with Clement, the bishop of Rome, from whom the famous letter to the Corinthians remains, suggesting that Christian tradition made this Clement, a pagan consul, into an ancient Roman bishop. But to admit that church tradition made this identification means allowing too much freedom in explaining the facts. Leaving aside these scholars, one may ask, was this Clement a Christian martyr? Many reputable scientists are inclined in the positive direction when solving this issue. But this can be doubted. The greatest negligence (contemptissima ignavia) could characterize a Christian: in the eyes of a cultured pagan, a Christian could appear inofficiosus (careless in the performance of his duties). But to conclude from this that Clement was a Christian would be very bold and even offensive to Christianity. The accusation of atheism - aqeoths, crimen sacrilegii, could be leveled against some pagan, especially under such an emperor who called himself not only Dominus, but also Deus. It was enough to omit the title of “god”, carried away by a privileged position and family ties with the emperor, to be accused of aqeoths. Then, it is not clear that the executed Clement was accused of Jewish customs. Thus, Titus Flavius ​​Clement was not a Christian. If he had been a Christian, then tradition would not have forgotten him. True, church tradition has not preserved the names of many martyrs. But it’s another thing to forget a slave, a woodcutter, and another thing to forget a believer from the house of Caesar. To admit this is to assume a very strange forgetfulness in the Christians of the first centuries. If Flavius ​​Clement had been a Christian, then Tertullian’s words that “emperors would have become Christians if they could have been Christians” would hardly have been possible. And Eusebius was not such an undiscerning scientist as not to note such a fact. But he does not make the slightest hint about Clement's Christianity. On the contrary, he speaks positively about Domitilla’s Christianity, citing the testimony of the pagan writer Bruttius or Brettius (3rd century) who has not come down to us. It is obvious that Eusebius found no textual evidence for Clement's Christianity. This issue must be left in this situation for the time being. The news about Domitilla’s Christianity is all the more reliable for us since Christianity generally penetrated into higher spheres more likely through the female half. Church tradition connects the persecution of Domitian with the reference of John the Theologian to the island of Patmos. This is already mentioned in Eusebius (III, 18), who refers in this case to Irenaeus (Adv. haer. V, 30:3). The legend that the Apostle John was previously summoned to Rome under Nero and, thrown here into a cauldron of boiling oil, remained unharmed, is read in Tertullian (De praescr. 36). Period two. Christianity as religio illicita (illegal religion) On September 18, 96, Domitian fell victim to a conspiracy caused, among other things, by the execution of consular Flavius ​​Clement. His successor was Emperor Cocceius Nerva, an elderly senator who reigned for only a year and a few months (96–98). Domitian apparently left him with many cases that he had brought against suspicious individuals. But the new noble emperor gave the order to terminate any investigation on charges of asebeia and seduction into Jewish customs. In the same way, he returned the political exiles of the reign of Domitian to Rome. In the first year 96 of his reign, he abolished the “Jewish fiscus,” which earned him special gratitude from the Senate, which issued a coin in honor of this fact. Nerva opens with his reign one of the most brilliant eras in the history of the Roman Empire. All five emperors of this era (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius) left a memory as the best emperors, optimi imperatores, as the color of the Caesars. They also stood highly as moral characters. The fortuitous circumstance that the first four emperors had no offspring prompted them to introduce a system of adoption of the “most worthy.” In general, the choice of the emperors was extremely successful. The aged Nerva was already good, but his successor Trajan (98–117) turned out to be superior to him. A man who had already previously become famous for his military exploits, he surpassed his military glory with his civic qualities. He was distinguished by an extraordinary evenness of character (inusitatae civilitatis), which did not betray him either in the capital or in the provinces. He was an exemplary guardian of old Roman rights and an establisher of new rights. He was extremely loved by the people; he was idolized during his lifetime. He laid three principles as the basis of his rule: 1) good Roman conservatism, support for ancient institutions, not excluding the remnants of Roman freedom and the influence of the Senate; 2) in this regard, concern for the restoration of the ancestral Roman religion, which Trajan treated with conscientiousness and strict attentiveness; and, finally, 3) humanity, which corresponded to the natural character of Trajan; He stated, among other things, that he seriously supported the charitable institutions of Nerva and founded an orphanage for children's charity (alimentatio). In this regard, the image of Trajan that has survived to us is characteristic, in which he is represented surrounded by children, awaiting his alimentatio. To characterize the sense of right that animated him, we can point to the words that he said when presenting the state sword to the praetorian prefect for the first time: “use this sword in my defense if I reign well, and against me if I am a bad sovereign.” In general, Trajan left behind him the glory of such a just and kind sovereign that until the 4th century the people, greeting the newly installed emperor, usually exclaimed: “Be happier than Augusto and kinder than Trajan” (felicior Augusto, melior Trajano)! Trajan's successor was Adrian, who was adopted by him (117–138). As a character, the Romans liked him much less than his predecessor. They found that there was too much artificial in it. The people instinctively felt in his features the lack of something primordially Roman and called him Graeculus. In fact, Adrian reveals much in his character traits that makes him suspect that he was not predisposed to insanity. Perhaps this is related to the brutal executions of noble Romans that marred the last years of his reign. Therefore, he was far from enjoying the love that Trajan enjoyed, and his apotheosis did not take place without resistance and took place only thanks to the efforts of Antoninus Pius. But the reign of this latter constitutes the culmination of this entire era, which is why it is called the era of the Antonines. Antoninus (138–161) acquired the name Pius, which means not so much pious in a religious sense, but rather delicately gentle, humane in relation to people. As a character, Antoninus Pius appears to historians to be incomparable and almost flawless. Everything he did was imprinted with extraordinary gentleness. During his reign, little blood was shed within the empire and even on the borders. Therefore, his reign is marked by the character of extraordinary peace and prosperity of all provinces. His humanity was such that he truly rose even to the ideal of a “man on the throne,” and he was extremely loved by his subjects, so that although he died as an old man of more than 70 years, his death was greeted with such grief as if he had died as a young man. His apotheosis took place without the slightest difficulty, because everyone vied with each other (certatim) to idolize him. Antoninus's successor, Marcus Aurelius (161–180), as a character, is inferior to Antoninus. He lacked the naturalness and accessibility that distinguished his predecessor; but Mark also left historians with a reputation of an exalted nature: they found in him “coeleste ingenium.” He was a man of high education, devoted to the study of philosophy to such an extent that his contemporaries considered him one of the most serious philosophers of his time, and when it was necessary to go on a campaign against the Germans, those close to him asked the emperor, just in case, to publish his philosophical works so that they would not die if any misfortune happened. He, too, despite some roughness of character, behaved so easily that all his subjects considered him close to themselves, each according to their age - the young recognized him as a father, those of equal age as a brother, and those older in age as a son. His political rivals considered it a vice that he was engaged in philosophy too much for the emperor, and called him anicula philosopha (old woman philosopher), and admitted that although he himself was completely impeccable (Marcus homo sane optimus), but, while engaged in philosophy, he looked too poorly at what the praesides appointed by him were doing in the provinces, and did not pay attention to the fact that some beggar today, Having become a dignitary, he suddenly collected enormous wealth. Nevertheless, Marcus Aurelius enjoyed such love among the people that almost every subject had his image among the household gods, and it was considered almost sacrilegium (sacrilegus judicatus est) if someone who had the means to acquire the image of the emperor nevertheless did not have it. Thus, from the side of those who ascended the throne by succession, the reign of the Antonines was brilliant. In the minds of their distant descendants, these emperors remained representatives of the happy era of the Roman Empire, and perhaps this consciousness of subsequent generations best characterizes the significance of this era in history. It turns out that the name “Antonin” was extremely loved. It seemed to many to be a divine name, so that they considered it almost impossible to come up with a name more sacred in Latin than Antoninus. In the adoption of this name by subsequent emperors they saw something more than a brilliant political program: they found in this, so to speak, the palladium of the prosperity of the Roman Empire under the power of a sovereign called Antoninus. When the son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, who put an end to the brilliant era of the Antonines, decided to adopt the name of Hercules, his contemporaries considered it simply ridiculous that he, bearing the name of Antoninus, wanted to take another divine name, and in Rome an epigram appeared on Commodus, who believes that it is more glorious to be a god (clarius esse deum) than a sovereign with such a brilliant name as Antoninus. Emperor Opilius Macrinus, elected in 217, considered it necessary to reinforce his position on the throne with the charming name of Antoninus. He felt his position was precarious until there was a successor in his family in the person of Antonin. Therefore, he decided to give his young son Diadumen the name “Antonin”. When his son was recognized by the army of the emperor Antonin, the father, out of joy, sent the following letter to his wife: “The happiness that befell us defies any description. You may think that I am talking about the fact that I became an emperor: this happiness is not great; after all, blind fate sometimes elevated unworthy people to the throne. No, I’m talking about something else: I became the father of Antonin, you became the mother of Antonin.” (Antonini pater factus sum, Antonini mater es facta). And when the army greeted the young emperor with this name (a characteristic exclamation: “tu scis, Jupiter, Antoninus vinci non potest, Antoninum habemus, omnia habemus,” his father exclaimed: “Commilitones! For the fact that you recognized my son as emperor, I give 3 ducats for each, and for the name of Antonin - 5 ducats and double the production in ranks!” To complete the characteristics of this respect for the name of Antonin, one can also point out that when Alexander Severus ascended the throne in 222, having adopted the name of Aurelius as emperor, the army and citizens asked him to adopt the name of Antoninus on the grounds that, as he is called Aurelius, the new emperor had to endure an extraordinary struggle with this desire of the people, refusing only because he considered himself incapable of bearing such a divine name (Antoninorum). nomen, veljam numen). This is the glorious era that opens in the Roman Empire with the death of Domitian. But for Christians this was an era in which their situation changed for the worse. It is during this period that the shadow of the Jewish religion, which hitherto covered Christianity in the eyes of the government, is removed. Under what influences this change took place, which caused a new attitude towards Christianity, there is no direct data in history to explain this. But one can guess that the change occurred not without the influence of two facts: on the one hand, the fall of Jerusalem in 70 and the end of the national and state independence of the Jews, on the other, the wider spread of Christianity. Not only the people, but also the government itself now recognizes Christianity under its own name, distinguishes it from Judaism with its sects. The fall of Jerusalem for all Jews, of course, was a very regrettable event. Meanwhile, this is not how Christians should have looked at this fact. Here they saw new evidence from history about the divine origin of Christianity, because in the fall of Jerusalem the Savior’s prediction was fulfilled with accuracy. Thus, Christians and Jews could not help but declare their difference by their different attitude towards this political fact. The government may have noticed that among the supposed Jews, some looked upon this event as a deplorable fact, while others regarded it as their own victory. Then, initially Christianity spread largely among the Jews. The Jews of the Diaspora were the living nerve through which the current of Christianity initially spread, and among the pagans the seed of Christianity was carried, first of all, to those places where Jewish colonies existed. And here, people who were not particularly close to Jewry understood little of what religious shade these or other Jews adhered to. At first it was probably as difficult for the Roman government to understand the difference between Christians and Jews as it is difficult in our time to understand the difference between a Talmudic Jew and a Karaite Jew. But subsequently, especially in the center of the Roman Empire, the overwhelming majority of Christians were no longer of Jewish origin. Christianity spread among the pagans more and more. Thus, this new sect had already lost its national-Jewish imprint in the eyes of the Roman government. There was nothing Jewish about it and the non-Jewish origin of its followers was very well known. And perhaps the reign of Domitian brought its share of influence into the distinction between Jews and Christians. This emperor exacted taxes from the Jews (fiscus judaicus) with particular severity. Consequently, pagan Christians had sufficient grounds to demand that this tax not be collected from them, as non-Jews, and it is quite possible that some of the Christians from whom they wanted to take this tax refused to pay it, citing the fact that they were not of the Jewish religion. Thus, the government was little by little able to become acquainted with Christianity as a sect distinct from Judaism. Trajan's Rescript and its meaning From Trajan, with his highly humane character, Christians, apparently, should expect only good things. But by a completely fatal coincidence, they were interested in the Roman throne being occupied, on the contrary, by unworthy people. And if Tertullian says that no one persecuted Christians except the monsters of humanity - Nero and Domitian, then his expression has only an apologetic character. The best emperors paid serious attention to the course of state affairs, but this had an unfavorable effect on Christians. The consistently applied principle of regularity considered the very existence of Christianity prohibited and created for Christians the position: non licet esse vos. During the reign of Trajan, about whom a legend arose about his liberation from hell, the position of Christians, if not changed for the worse, then received a legal form that was used in subsequent times. Under him, the edict was issued for the first time, which for a long time determined the incompetent position of Christians in the Roman Empire. The case is about correspondence between Caius Pliny Secundus and Trajan. The authenticity of this correspondence is not recognized as indisputable by all scientists. Back in the 18th century, two such eminent scientists as Gibbon and Semmler disputed its reliability. In recent times (1875), doubts about its authenticity were quite loudly expressed by the French scientist Aubé, who, however, does not go so far as to directly deny the authenticity of these monuments and, after some hesitation, uses them as reliable historical sources. Most scientists, however, do not consider it possible to suspect the historical authenticity of these documents and recognize them as authentic. Not to mention various other scholars who have dealt with this issue in ancient and recent times, mention should be made of Arnold's study on the history of Pliny's persecution (F. Arnold, Studien zur Geschichte der Plinianischen Christenverfolgung. Konigsberg 1887) and Neumann's above-mentioned essay on the Roman state and church. These two scientists examined the matter and summed up everything that was done best. All of Aube's objections to Arnold's authenticity are found to be shaky. Probably at the end of 111. Caius Pliny Secundus, former consul of 100, a personal friend of Trajan, arrived in Bithynia with the rank of imperial governor of this country (legatus Trajani Augusti pro praetore consularis). Pliny was an excellent lawyer and orator and, in addition, a good farmer. With Trajan he was in the closest, friendly, one might say, relationship. Trajan could rely on him for anything, as a person who could not betray him. It just happened that during his time the province of Bithynia fell into complete decline. Bithynia belonged to the imperial provinces. The provinces were divided into senatorial and imperial; the Senate was in charge of provinces that had long been conquered and pacified, in which there could no longer be an uprising; the emperor, as commander-in-chief of the Roman troops, border and recently conquered. Proconsuls were appointed to the Senate provinces, praetors to the less important ones, and legati Augusti pro praetore consulares to the imperial ones. Bithynia had the misfortune of falling into the hands of bad rulers. Their replacement was accompanied by accusations from the Bithynians of bribery - repetundarum (a distorted word instead of repetendae). Of Pliny’s predecessors, two left behind a bad memory: the Bithynians conducted a trial against them in Rome itself. It was natural for such a good sovereign as Trajan to take care to give the province a worthy ruler. And his choice fell on Pliny, a humane, highly educated man who enjoyed the trust of the sovereign. He was a man of unconditional honesty, and Trajan could not fear trials for bribery. His wealth was colossal; he was an exemplary owner, and his strength lay in his financial talents. This exemplary owner was sent by the emperor to a province exhausted by bribery, whose economic affairs were in terrible disorder. Here Pliny first encountered Christians and the Christian question to such an extent that he entered into correspondence with the emperor. Pliny, probably at the end of 112, wrote to Trajan with the following letter: “I consider it my sacred duty to turn to you, sir, for clarification of those questions that arouse bewilderment in me. I have never been in trials (intereram - actually as an assessor) against Christians.” Thus, Pliny here says that he did not happen to be present at the trials against Christians as a legal assessor, but he already knows the trials themselves and points to them as facts. Obviously, these processes already existed before Pliny took control of Bithynia, or under Nerva, or under Trajan. But one cannot think that the trials under Domitian were meant here, because to refer to this most disgusting emperor in the eyes of all pagans would mean to put a stain on the reign of such a humane sovereign as Trajan. “Therefore, I don’t know what they are usually interrogated about and for what and to what extent they are punished. I was in no small difficulty whether to recognize their difference in age, or whether one should not distinguish minors from stronger ones at all, whether to give forgiveness for repentance, or to those who have ever been a Christian, renouncing Christianity does not bring any benefit, whether to execute them for the name itself (nomen ipsum), in the absence of other crimes, or for crimes (flagitia), standing in connection with the name. Flagitium must be distinguished from scelus. The first denotes a crime that is vile, disgusting, dishonoring to the person to whom it refers, but not frightening or dangerous to others, like scelus. This last crime has the character of cruelty - facinus atrox. The conspiracy of Catiline, as a crime against the state, is a scelus, not a flagitium. Consequently, Pliny, accusing Christians of flagitia, means the Thyestian suppers and Oedipal mixtures. Obviously, the views of the mob on Christians have already penetrated into the upper strata of society. “Meanwhile, with those who were denounced to me as Christians, I acted as follows. I questioned them whether they were Christians, and when they confessed, I asked them the same thing a second and third time, threatening them with execution. Those who persisted, I ordered to be taken away (apparently to death penalty, duci jussi). I had no doubt that whatever they confessed to, their stubbornness and unrepentance certainly deserved punishment. But besides those executed, there were other such madmen. But since these were Roman citizens, I intended them to be sent to the capital. But once the matter involved went further; new complications arose. In the nameless denunciation submitted to me, there were many people on the list of Christians who declared that they were not Christians and had never even been Christians. When they, following me, made an appeal to the gods and worshiped your image, which I ordered to be brought along with the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ (real Christians, they say, cannot be forced to do either one, or the other, or the third), then I considered it possible to let them go. Others on the list confessed that they had once been Christians, but had left their society, some three years ago, others a little earlier, and some even twenty years ago. They all honored your image and cursed the statues of gods and Christ. All their guilt, according to them, consisted in the fact that on certain days, early in the morning, they came together and sang a song to Christ as to God, that in the name of religion (sacramento) they pledged not to commit any crime, but to not steal, not to rob, not to commit adultery, to honestly keep their word and return the pledges entrusted, that after that they dispersed and then gathered again to eat food, however, ordinary and innocent (apparently, rumors about thyestiae epulae and incesti concubitus were known to Pliny). Yes, and they stopped doing this after I, at your command, banned heteria. Nevertheless, I considered it necessary to torture two slaves, who were called ministrae (obviously, the Greek ai diakonoi - deaconesses), in order to find out what is fair here. But I found nothing else here except gross and immeasurable superstition. Therefore, postponing further proceedings, I turn to you for advice.” Further, as a motive, many accused are pointed out. Christians spread with the speed of infection. Even pagan temples began to empty. But the measures taken by the proconsul have already resulted in an increase in the number of victims. By being lenient towards those accused of Christianity, he hopes to restore the former religious order. Trajan’s answer to Pliny is as follows: “In the trial of those who were reported to you as Christians, you acted, my dear Secundus, as you should, and it is, in fact, impossible to establish any universal rule in the sense of a definite and unchangeable norm. They should not be searched for, but if they are accused and convicted, they should be executed. However, the one who does not recognize himself as a Christian and proves this by deed himself, that is, by worshiping our gods, will receive forgiveness for repentance, even if his past was suspicious. But nameless denunciations should not take place in any process. This would be the worst example and unworthy of our century.” Thus, we have the fact of the proconsul’s natural appeal to the sovereign and the emperor’s response to it. The answer is characteristic in many respects. It happens that it is difficult for a person to express a certain position, and then he resorts to the method of remainders. So is Trajan: he does not indicate how to act, but only talks about what should not happen. To clarify the rescript, let us compare it with Pliny’s letter. First of all, Pliny: A) formulates question points with the precision of a lawyer, asking to resolve his bewilderment: nescio, quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quaeri (I don’t know for what and to what extent it is customary to interrogate and punish). 1) For what (quid) should Christians be punished: a) for the name itself, in the absence of other crimes (nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat), or b) for crimes in connection with the name (an flagitia cohaerentia nomini puniantur)? Then 2) to what extent (quatenus) to punish, a) whether to make a distinction based on age (sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum), b) whether one should not distinguish minors from stronger ones at all (an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant), c) whether to give forgiveness for repentance (detume poenitentiae venia), or d) to those who have ever been a Christian, renunciation Christianity does not bring any benefit (an ei, qui omnino christianus fuit, desisse non prosit)? Then Pliny: B) described the general course of the trial and set forth the following details: 1) to ensure that the accused did not belong to Christianity, he demanded three pieces of evidence: a) invocation of the gods and sacrifices before their simulacra, b) sacrifices before the image (imago) of the emperor and c) in addition, curses on Christ (maledicerent Christo); 2) he accepted the libellus sine auctore, and on the basis of it 3) he himself began (without an accuser) an investigation into the case of those listed in the anonymous denunciation. Trajan's answer A) on question 1) quid is somewhat tone-deaf: not to search, but, if they are accused and caught, to execute; but its general meaning is undeniable: the emperor spoke in favor of “nomen ipsum”. On question 2) quatenus clause “ab” Trajan passed over in silence; he treated this point with much more coldness than could be expected from a humane sovereign; eo ipso the alternative was resolved rather in the sense of “b”. But the remark that it is impossible to give a general rule for all cases could be costly for humane proconsuls. Point “c” is categorically approved: veniam ex poenitentia impetret. The state did not want to deal with the past of Christians and considered them as sakrilegs only in the present. B) The form of the process is recognized as correct. But the emperor will be content with only a sacrifice to the gods (a). For the Christian conscience, the meaning remains the same, but the moment of impietatis (b) has been eliminated. They do not insist on the last difficult point (c), probably in order to facilitate the return to paganism. Under paragraph 2) there is a strong prohibition on accepting anonymous denunciations. Even reproach can be heard in the emperor’s words here. According to paragraph 3) it is prohibited to search for Christians (conquirendi non sunt). Trajan's Rescript thus has two sides. He limited the persecution of Christians to one side. The emperor's answer was to admit that there could be no general form in the trial of Christians, that the process against Christians, in general, must be a coercitio, that is, a process consistent with the circumstances. But Trajan at the same time limited the use of coercitio by prohibiting the acceptance of nameless denunciations and the search for Christians. This was the extent of the initiative of the presidents. It was pointed out that the prosecution should approach a criminal trial, in which the accusing person, the accused, and his crime should be named. As is known, the criminal process at that time was carried out in an accusatory manner. Roman law did not know an institution quite similar to our prosecutorial supervision, which, ex professo, ex officio, prosecutes known crimes. Only in exceptional cases (for crimes either too important or too outrageous) was the responsibility for prosecution assigned to a government official. Ordinarily, a case could begin only when some private individual acted as prosecutor. The initiative (“initiation”) of criminal proceedings then belonged not to the state, but to society, namely to individual individuals. The basic legal rule read: “accusator ubi non est, ibi non est judex”, “where there is no prosecutor, there can be no trial” 6 . The accuser was recognized as such a necessity for the trial that it could not be conducted not only on the basis of a nameless denunciation, but even on the basis of a collective statement from the crowd, if none of them wanted to present themselves personally as an accuser. "Innocens creditor cui defuit accusator, cum non defuerit inimicus." The consequences of this position are clear. Anyone could accuse Christians (not infamis), even due to personal enmity towards them, but anyone could also accuse anyone else: their position before the law was equal. The risk of accusation limited the number of accusers to a certain extent. Once the nomen delictum was pronounced, the accuser became an informer, and this profession flourished only under the worst sovereigns, after whose death they usually shouted, greeting the new emperor: “Informers with a stick!” Naturally, acting as an informer was risky. With nominis receptio, some could be removed by the judge himself. Christians were protected (de jure) from nameless denunciations and “cries of the crowd” because they were subject to general laws. But in the main, the rescript was against Christians: it established persecution against them. Christians were subject to persecution for “the name itself,” nomen ipsum, that is, for simply belonging to the Christian society. This was an authoritative and categorical explanation that the Christian Church is a collegium illicitum. A vacillation of the presidents on this point, favorable to Christians, was impossible from that time on. Those accused of Christianity were faced with a choice between renouncing their faith—a form of renunciation, sacrifice to the gods, the emperor legalized—and death. The formula for the process against Christians was shortened: there was no need to prove that they were sacrilegi, impii, etc., it was enough for them to admit that they were Christians. It is true that they could not evade this confession except by proving that they were not sacrilegi. For a firm confession of Christianity, for “invincible perseverance,” even a child could be condemned to death. With his rescript, Trajan obviously did not introduce anything new, but only sanctioned the previous persecution and execution of Christians; he did not establish the criminality of Christianity. The question of flagitia passed by the emperor in silence; he did not charge the proconsul with the duty to investigate precisely this point, to look at Christians as suspects in these crimes: the popular rumor about Christians is not given faith. But, in any case, he did not treat Christians indifferently; the trial process against them was only simplified under him. From the subsequent history it is clear that those who tried Christians were afraid to utter the word “Christian”, because this was the end of the process, and if torture was used, it was only to force them to renounce. The most important thing in this rescript is that the initiative was taken away from the presidents: they could initiate the process only when the accuser appeared. This last point illuminates the entire subsequent history of relations towards Christians. Therefore, one can immediately see why Hadrian’s rescript appeared to Minucius Fundan. Serennius Granian asked whether it was possible to cancel that detail of Trajan's decree so that a delatio could be made. Roman law stated that he could not be tried if he had enemies but no accuser. The Christians had an extremely large number of enemies, but there was no brave man who would act as an accuser. Serenny asks whether it is possible to do without an accuser, whether it is possible for the president to take the initiative of prosecution. Adrian answered flatly. He says that if Christianity is a crime, then this crime must be charged and proven. Therefore, an accuser and a delatio are necessary. In practice, this opened up the possibility of a relatively quiet existence for Christians even in times of persecution. Only with this limitation is it possible for such a situation that, for example, Emilian of Tarraco (259) sends the bishop and deacons to the stake, and at home tolerates slaves who are obviously Christians. No one accused them, and Emilian did not persecute them. If the accuser had appeared, the praeses would have sent them to the stake or ad bestias. Some doubt how Trajan's rescript could serve as a guiding principle for all subsequent practice. After all, this is a private response from the emperor to a private request from the proconsul. Why extend it to all Christians? But, firstly, we do not know in full the fate of this letter. After all, why not assume that someone else could have approached Trajan with a similar question, and then Trajan could have sent out his letter in the form of a circular. On the other hand, Trajan’s answer, as an answer to a legal question, thereby stood out from a number of ordinary letters, and, moreover, having ended up in the collection of such a lawyer as Pliny, he had even more of a chance of receiving important legal significance. In any case, there is no reason to doubt the validity of this letter. History indicates certain special cases in which the effect of the rescript continued until the time of Diocletian, despite the fact that during the persecution of Decius the government itself took the initiative in the persecution of Christians. During the reign of Trajan, according to the testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, Bishops Ignatius of Antioch and Simeon of Jerusalem died a martyr, and, according to a legend not confirmed by Eusebius and more ancient authors, Clement of Rome also died a martyr. In determining the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch, scientists fluctuate between 104 and 116, i.e. the controversial period covers most of Trajan’s reign, and in one of the newest studies (A. Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius und die Chronologic der antiochenischen Bischofe. Leipzig 1878) it was suggested that Ignatius suffered, perhaps not even under Trajan, but under Hadrian (Adrian’s full name is Imperator Caesar divi Trajani parthici filius, divi Nervae nepos, [Publius Aelius] Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus). But this view did not meet with sympathy among scientists. In this case, the dispute regarding the time of death of St. Ignatius stems from a prejudice against the chronicle of Eusebius. Harnack was struck by the fact that the names of the bishops of Antioch were recorded four years later in comparison with the names of the bishops of Rome. He tried to prove that this piquant monotony is possible only by selecting and correcting the years. But Lightfoot's countertest (J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers. Part II. S. Ignatius. S. Polycarp. Vol. 1-III. London 18892) showed that the uniformity of numbers should not confuse the historian; he gives the example of the list of Canterbury bishops, in which the number 10 often appears. The same strangeness is noticed in civil history, for example, in the successive changes of government in France after the revolution (1793, 1804, 1814, 1824). Thus, the attempt to shake the chronology of the Antiochian church did not lead to any results. It is all the more strange to doubt the dates of Eusebius, since the latter directly admits his powerlessness, where he cannot indicate real dates, as, for example, regarding the Jerusalem episcopate. The details of the martyrdom of Ignatius the God-Bearer are historically very vague. We have reached two detailed tales about his death (martyria), significantly different from each other. According to the first edition (the so-called martyrium Colbertinum: “Arti diadexamenou”), Ignatius in Antioch itself was condemned by the emperor Trajan to be devoured by wild beasts, and already condemned, he was sent to Rome, where he died as a martyr in the circus in 107 on December 20. According to another edition (martyrium Vaticanum: “En etei”), on the contrary, it is assumed that for some reason Ignatius went to Rome even before his trial, here in Rome he was presented to the court of the emperor, put the emperor and the senate to shame, was convicted and died a martyr in the Roman circus. Both of these editions agree on the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome. But there is a third, albeit vague, legend, recorded in one Syrian manuscript and in the chronicle of John Malala, that Ignatius the God-Bearer died as a martyr in Antioch itself. Obe also leans towards this last legend. But the surviving letter of Ignatius to the Romans and the fact that the tradition of the Antiochian church of the time of Chrysostom speaks of the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome disqualifies the last edition (in the chronicle of Malala). In the end, we have to be inclined to believe that the meeting of Ignatius the God-Bearer with Trajan took place not in Rome, but in Antioch. All you need to do is find when Trajan was in Antioch? Both martyrdoms (Colbertinum and Vaticanum) indicate the time of Ignatius’s meeting with the emperor, the 9th year of Trajan’s reign, i.e., 106. Hence, it is assumed that both martyrdoms were compiled according to the chronicle of Eusebius, where the death of Ignatius is attributed to the 10th year or, according to some lists, to the 9th year. Eusebius may have chosen this year because it represents the middle of Trajan's reign. However, the 9th year, adopted in the martyrium Colbertinum and Vaticanum, does not agree with other historical news: there is no way to prove from currently existing historical monuments that Trajan was in Antioch in 106 or 107. The presence of the emperor in Antioch undoubtedly declines in 114 and 115. In October 113, he went on a Parthian campaign and did not return to Rome, because he died on the way back in 117. While staying in Antioch in 115, in January or February, a terrible earthquake occurred. One of the consuls of this year, Marcus Vergilianus Pedo, died under the ruins of a building. The emperor himself barely escaped through the window. Thus, a very alarming state of mind arose and it is quite possible that this was the reason for the martyrdom of Ignatius. The people, embittered by the disaster, could demand death for the “atheists,” and the Antiochian church had to put forward a victim from among itself - its bishop. Trajan gave him to be torn to pieces by beasts in Rome: the reasons for this are inexplicable, but such was the will of the emperor. In any case, if Ignatius was convicted by the proconsul in Antioch, then his sending to Rome is still not entirely clear: there is no reason to think that Ignatius belonged to the number of Roman citizens about whom the proconsul did not have the power to pronounce the final decision, as can be seen from Pliny’s letter. Ignatius himself undoubtedly did not appeal to the emperor. One possible assumption remains: did someone else file an appeal for Ignatius? Thus, the result is the following: that the Bishop of Antioch died as a martyr is an undoubted historical fact. We must also accept as reliable that St. Ignatius died in Rome, and not in Antioch. But the remaining details of his condemnation to death remain obscure. To the year 106–107, Chronicon Eusebii also dates the martyrdom of the Bishop of Jerusalem Simeon, a 120-year-old elder. He was accused before the proconsul Atticus as a Christian and as a Davidite, that is, a contender for the Jewish throne. That after much torture he was crucified on the cross, there is nothing incredible in this. But there is more reason to believe that the time of his persecution was the last years (115–117) of Trajan, when the uprising of the Jews broke out, and not only in Palestine, but also in Egypt, Cyrene, and Cyprus. In this troubled era, political suspicion is quite understandable, and being descended from David must have greatly aggravated the position of the elderly bishop, who belonged to a Christian (illegal) society. But the correspondence between the president of the first Palestine Tiberian and the emperor Trajan must be classified as myths. The first pointed out the small number of Christians and their harmlessness to society, and the emperor responded with a prohibition to execute them. By its very technical expressions this correspondence proves that it was composed after Julian. Palestine is here divided into two provinces; Christians are called Galileans. The third martyrdom, which dates back to the time of Trajan, is the martyrdom of Clement of Rome. The tradition about Clement, Bishop of Rome, as a martyr or confessor, is one of the dark ones. Martyrium Clementis is of late origin (comes officiorum, mentioned already there, in fact appears for the first time only under Julian). The tradition of the martyrdom of Clement is attested for the first time in 398: Rufinus calls him "martyr". Jerome says that in Rome there was an ecclesia sancti Clementis. In 417, Pope Zosimus, in a letter to Aurelius of Carthage, said that the council, which considered the case of the presbyter Celestius, met “in sancti Clementis basilica, qui [Petri apostoli disciplinas] etiam martyrio consecraret.” But on the other hand, Eusebius in history only says that Clement died in the third year of Trajan, and in Eusebius’s chronicle his martyrdom is also not mentioned. Especially important is the silence of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who, listing the Roman bishops (III, 3:3), only about one Telesphorus († 135–137) notes: “os kai endoxws emartuhsen,” “who gloriously testified” (by martyrdom to his faith), and does not mention the martyrdom of Clement, whereas this would have been the first martyr in the Roman see. To eliminate the silence of Irenaeus, they place special emphasis on the word “endoxws”, which suggests that others also suffered, but not as gloriously as Telesphorus. Obviously, this explanation sounds artificial. In view of this state of historical data, not only Protestant, but also Catholic scholars hesitate on the issue of Clement. Protestants sometimes pose the question very abruptly and suggest that either the legend about Clement the Bishop of Rome was formed from the legend about Clement the Consul, who was executed under Domitian, or that Clement the Consul came from Clement, the Bishop of Rome. But such a radical formulation of the question is unfair due to the fact that, on the one hand, the consul Clement was too noticeable a person, so that evidence of him remained in pagan history, and yet his features of Christianity are not clear enough to transform him into a bishop, and on the other hand, Clement the bishop is attested very firmly, his letter to the Corinthian church is also known. Therefore, we can only talk about whether the exile of Bishop Clement “to Pontus” is not a reworking (due to a misunderstanding) of the news about the exile of Flavia Domitilla to the island of Pontius. Judging by the ancient calendars, there is no reason to assume that the memory of Clement the martyr was honored in Rome. The Carthaginian calendar mentions the martyr Clement, but he is not called a bishop, which is done in relation to Xistus, Cyprian, etc. The more ancient “Depositio martyrum” also mentions the martyr Clement, but under a different date (in the month of November) and again without the word “bishop”. The Roman Liber pontificalis states that Clement died in Greece in March. In view of all this, it is natural that the question of the place of Clement’s martyrdom must be considered dark and insoluble on the basis of ancient historical monuments. As for the fact that the Slavic first teachers found the relics of Clement and his disciple in Crimea, this, without a doubt, was a fact for the time in which they lived. But the incorruptible relics themselves do not certify a historical personality, unless other legends have been preserved, and the fact that the relics were brought from Crimea to St. Constantine does not in any way eliminate doubts arising from the lack of necessary evidence in ancient Christian literature. The history of Crimea is not at all such that traditions could be kept intact here; these could have been the relics of some other Clement, who suffered here with his disciple and was identified with Clement of Rome. That the locals call him the “Roman” bishop is not surprising. This could happen all the more quickly here to another person, since the Crimean peninsula was inhabited by various nationalities. Its inhabitants were not firmly connected with the Roman Empire; Naturally, they called the foreign martyr sent here “Roman.” Also, the fact that in Rome they greet him as a bishop is not surprising: the historical erudition of Pope Nicholas I was of a very low standard, even regarding the events of the near future, and even more so regarding ancient traditions. Rescripts with the names of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius A further question that has to be resolved in the history of persecution is the question of the authenticity of certain rescripts of the emperors in favor of Christians, which have survived to our time. The position of Christians established under Trajan did not change for a very long time. Trajan's immediate successors followed the same path in their policy towards Christians. On the Roman throne there were generally the best emperors that the history of these centuries knows. Everyone seemed to feel as happy as possible with their rule. Meanwhile, Christians were persecuted, and persecuted simply for belonging to a society that was not recognized by the government. Educated Christians tried to change this legal position of their church and began to directly appeal to the emperors with their apologies. This is what Codratus, Aristides, Melito, and Justin the Philosopher did. But their apologies, as is known, did not produce a favorable effect for Christians, that is, Trajan’s decree and established practice were not canceled. The position of Christians seemed so artificial that the true understanding of it was obscured by Christian writers. Already Tertullian, who subjected such sharp criticism to the inconsistency of Trajan, gives such a tendentious coverage of the history of Christians. He says that it is very flattering for Christians to have people like Nero or Domitian as their persecutors. Nero was such a bad ruler that there is no doubt that he could only pursue very good things. Meanwhile, the best emperors did not at all consider Christians harmful to society. For example, Trajan was so convinced of the innocence of Christians that he forbade even searching for them. And under subsequent emperors the position of Christians did not change at all for the worse; on the contrary, they are trying to alleviate their situation: thus, Marcus Aurelius strictly forbade blaming Christians only for their Christianity. Subsequent Christian writers understood the matter no more than this. For example, Eusebius, who knew about Trajan’s rescript to Pliny, represents the state of affairs in such terms. Initially, Trajan issued an edict on the widespread persecution of Christians. But then, when he learned from Pliny’s report that Christians were appearing before the tribunal in large numbers, and was convinced that they were harmless, he forbade searching for Christians and, however, ordered them to be executed if they were caught. Martyrium Ignatii Vaticanum distorts these words of Eusebius and claims that Trajan ordered the search for Christians, but forbade their execution. Finally, Metaphrastus goes even further in this direction: Christians are sought everywhere, but they are sought not in order to subject them to execution, but in order to introduce the pagans themselves to them; Christians were only prohibited from holding public office. Given this state of affairs, Christians naturally trusted rumors that emperors were issuing edicts protecting Christians from persecution by the mob. Three such edicts have survived to our time: Hadrian (in Eusebius and Rufinus, IV, 9, and in the first apology of Justin, p. 68), Antoninus Pius (in Eusebius and Rufinus IV, 13 and in the appendix to the apologies of Justin) and Marcus Aurelius (in the appendix to the first apology of Justin). The degree of historical accuracy of these edicts varies. The rescript of Marcus Aurelius was undoubtedly planted. The Emperor here tells the Senate that during his campaign against the Quadi in 174, the entire Roman army was subjected to mortal thirst during a rainless period. But through the prayer of Christians to God, it began to rain. In gratitude for this, the emperor completely prohibits persecution against Christians and orders to burn alive those who accuse Christians simply because they are Christians. The question raised by this edict of Marcus Aurelius in favor of Christians has two sides. We can talk about 1) the fact that allegedly caused this edict, and 2) the content of the edict itself. As for the fact, the only thing that can be said about it historically is that during the war with the Quadi in 174, Marcus Aurelius and his army were actually in danger from thirst, but the rain that fell in time saved the Romans from disaster. But the philosopher-emperor was far from inclined to attribute such a happy outcome to Christians; on the contrary, there are even two versions of the pagan legend about this fact, and according to one of them, the rain came as a result of the spells of the Egyptian magician Arnufis, his prayers to the air god Hermes, and the other version attributes this rain to the action of the prayer of the emperor Marcus Aurelius himself. It is also incredible that there were so many Christians in the army of Marcus Aurelius that they could not only form a whole legion, but actually all were in one legion. One of the most ancient witnesses to this incident, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, says that in honor of this event the legion received the name “lightning”. Scholars studying Roman military history have found that the twelfth legion actually bore this name (legio duodecima fulminata); but it was one of the nineteen legions that existed under Augustus. It had this name for a long time, undoubtedly, under Nerva and Trajan (in general, the Roman legions, in addition to numbers, had some other nickname, for example, legio VI victrix, legio V alauda (lark), legio VII Claudia). This legion was in Syria in 68, took part in the conquest of Jerusalem under Vespasian, and stood in Cappadocia under Trajan. From the words of Apollinaris we can conclude that in his time this legion was stationed in the city of Melitina, that is, in Cappadocia (literally Apollinaris only says that keraunoboloV legewn was formerly called Melithnh, Eus. V, 5). Under Alexander Severus, legio XII fulminata was still in Asia. That he was summoned to the Danube in 174, no serious evidence has been presented. Thus, Marcus Aurelius saw no reason to issue an edict in favor of Christians. Then the content of the edict goes beyond the bounds of plausibility: informers against Christians are ordered to be burned alive, provincial leaders are forbidden to deprive Christians of their freedom, turn them away from the faith, or convert them to the former (pagan) faith - and this is in the edict exhibited at the forum in Rome! Such a document could not disappear without a trace and would not have an impact on the situation of Christians: persecution in Gaul in 177 would, in any case, be impossible. The title of the previous rescript has been preserved in a damaged form, so the question of which of the two emperors this document is attributed to remains controversial. Some read the name of Marcus Aurelius and find that the expression: “you persecute Christians to death” characterizes the reign of Marcus Aurelius; others (the majority) attribute the rescript to Antoninus Pius, because it is easier to correct the error in the date to 158. This rescript represents a somewhat more subtle work than the one discussed above. Eusebius accepts it as genuine. But it is not difficult to notice a Christian hand in it, and it is not surprising that back in 1781 (Haffner) its falsity was thoroughly proven. However, some scientists (for example, Wieseler) still defend its authenticity. A. Harnack recently tried to save the authenticity of this document (Texte und Untersuchungen, XIII, 4:1895), but, in my opinion, not thoroughly enough. He assumes that this document is based on a real lining, distorted by a Christian hand. But in this way the true content can be squeezed out of any forged document if all the forgeries in it are destroyed. The rescript was addressed proV to koinon thV AsiaV, that is, to the people's diet or meeting of municipal representatives of Western Asia, meeting in Ephesus, and was allegedly exhibited in this city. The text of the rescript, as read after Justin's apologies, represents later characteristic interpolations in comparison with the text in the history of Eusebius (they are noted below by add.). The contents of the rescript are as follows: “I am sure that the gods themselves take care that Christians become known to everyone, and the gods themselves would rather punish those who do not want to worship them [add.: they would punish them if they could]. You harass Christians, accuse them of godlessness [add.: and some other crimes that you cannot prove] and with your persecution you only strengthen them in their religious beliefs. For what could be more honorable for them than the consciousness that they are accused of being ready to sacrifice their lives rather than live having renounced their God? That is why they gain the upper hand over you, agreeing to sacrifice their lives rather than listen to you. Regarding the earthquake, you should learn from Christians to hope in God. You forget the gods, do not care about them, and even persecute to death those who honor God. Many presidents wrote to me and my father about this. And he ordered them not to disturb these persons in the least, unless it turned out that they were planning something against the Roman Empire. They wrote to me, and I answered them in the same sense. So, if someone decides to bring them to justice precisely for their religious beliefs, then the person brought to trial should be released from trial, even if it turns out that he is really a Christian, and the one who denounced him should be punished.” Thus, the author of the rescript reads a sermon to the pagans themselves. Christians are set as an example to them by their hope in God, by the strength of their religious conviction; it is proved in the most thorough manner that persecution only strengthens Christians in their religious convictions, and reference is made to a whole series of edicts in which it is forbidden to persecute Christians for their religion. Thus, this edict gives with a generous hand what all the apologists who lived in the second and even in the third century sought in vain. In contrast to these two rescripts discussed, the third of the above-mentioned documents, the rescript of Hadrian, must be recognized as authentic, although its authenticity is subject to suspicion. It was addressed to the proconsul of Cappadocia, Minucius Fundanus. It has been preserved in two editions, which differ in some points: in the Greek translation by Eusebius and in Latin by Rufinus. This Latin text, according to some, is only a reverse, not entirely accurate translation from Eusebius; according to others, it is the original of the rescript, whatever its origin. The contents of this rescript are as follows: I received a message from the most illustrious Serennius Granian, your predecessor, and I do not consider it possible to leave this report without an answer [Evs.: without investigation], so as not to alarm people [Ruf.: and innocent people] and not give slanderers a reason to rob [Evs.: to do evil]. If the inhabitants of the province want to openly conduct a case against Christians and are able to convict them of something in court, I do not forbid them to do so. But only requests and only screams are not allowed. In any case, if anyone wants to accuse them, then it is much fairer for you to investigate the charges brought against them. Thus, if anyone accuses the above-mentioned people and proves that they are doing something illegal, then you will impose punishment depending on the severity of the crime. But if anyone accuses one of them and turns out to be a slanderer, then, by Hercules, you are obliged to punish him severely for such a worthless deed.” Previous scholars did not doubt the authenticity of this rescript. [In modern times, supporters of authenticity include Wieseler, Funk 1879, Lightfoot, Uhlhorn, Mommsen 1890, Ramsay 1893, Hamack 1895, Schultze 1899]. Keim first expressed doubt in 1856 and remained a defender of this opinion until the end of his life. Baur, Lipsius, Hausrath, especially Overbeck (1875) took his side; Hase and Herzog silently joined them; [Veil 1894, Schubert 1897 also do not recognize the rescript as authentic]. He criticizes the Aube rescript in great detail (Histoire des persecutions de 1'eglise. Paris 1875), and formulates his opinion as follows: "In the end we strongly doubt the authenticity of the rescript." The reasons for doubt are: 1) The form in which the rescript was preserved. It begins directly: “Minuciu Fundanu.” The emperors did not write so unceremoniously: they put both their title and the title of proconsul. The names of both proconsuls are not entirely correct. Serennius Granianus, consul suffectus in May 106, was actually called Q. Licinius Q. f. Silvanus Granianus Quadronius Proculus; a Minucius Fundanus, consul suffectus in May 107, bore the name S. Minicius Fundanus. 2) The reason for which the rescript was issued. Relatio of Granianus, Asiatic proconsul in 123–124. has not survived to us, but, judging by the rescript, the proconsul asked: should the people be allowed to demand Christians to death without any judicial procedure? "How! - Obe objects. “The proconsul addresses this question to the emperor who, in his edictum perpetuum, imposes punishment on those who incite the crowd to do something criminal, that is, excites it with cries to accuse someone or ask for mercy for someone!” Adrian himself was against concessions to the cries of this imperitum vulgus: he, in order not to interfere with the property rights of another, did not agree to free, at the request of the people, one slave - a skilled driver. And the proconsul asks whether it is possible, at the simple whim of the crowd, to throw several people to be devoured by lions or to the fire! The primordial Roman legal view has always been that vanae voces populi non sunt audiendae, that on the basis of these cries one can neither release a guilty person from trial nor condemn an ​​innocent one. And Christian emperors borrowed from the pagan era that excellent principle that one must recognize as innocent someone against whom there are enemies, but no accuser. 3) Contents of the rescript. It holds the view that Christianity in itself is not a crime subject to punishment, that, contrary to Trajan’s rescript, it is not nomen ipsum that is punished, but only flagitia cohaerentia nomini, according to the amount of which the punishment is assigned. Meanwhile, Trajan imposes the death penalty for the mere firm confession of Christianity. All these arguments, however, are not strong enough to recognize the rescript as inauthentic. 1) There is no need to defend that the rescript of Eusebius and Rufinus was preserved diplomatically accurately. Just as Minucius came from Minicius, so Silvanus could have been corrupted into Serennius. But it is also possible that in the rescript, from several names of Granian, the one by which he was better known was not chosen. At this time, the Romans went by many names, so it is not easy to compile a complete list of them. For example, the consul ordinarius of 169 had 38 names: 1) Quintus Pompeius Quinti filius Senecio Roscius (5) Murena Coelius Sextus Julius Frontinus (10) Silius Decianus Caius Julius Eurycles (15) Herculaneus Lucius Vibullius Pius Augustanus (20) Alpinus Bellicius Sellers Julius Aper (25) Ducenius Proculus Rutilianus Rufinus Silius (30) Valens Valerius Niger Cl. Fuscus (35) Saxa Uryntianus (?) Sosius (38) Priscus. In short it was called Q. Pompeius Senecio Sosius Priscus, or Q. Sosius Priscus Senecio, or Q. Sosius Priscus, finally simply Priscus. The mistake in choosing a name that is more common when there are so many of them is easily understandable. 2) Life often presents deviations from legal principles, even the clearest ones. The mere fact that the law against vanae voces populi was renewed more than once suggests that imperitum vulgus often forced concessions to be made on this point 7 . Granianus was probably in that position, the highest degree of which is described in Matthew 27:23-26, and in his report asked permission in such cases to prevent public disorder to execute the guilty without observing judicial formalities. 3) The last objection is the strongest; but it gives an interpretation to the rescript that cannot be called either indisputable or unique. The Emperor demands only that Christians be tried and convicted according to legal formalities. It is not at all so clear that nomen ipsum is no longer considered a crime, that being a Christian does not mean for Adrian to act illegally. The word "christiani" in the rescript may simply mean "those accused of belonging to a Christian society." The gradation of punishments according to the degree of crime is not impossible on the basis of Trajan’s rescript: belonging to Christianity could be complicated by aggravating circumstances (a Christian could be accused of another flagitia). Thus, the text of the rescript allows for the interpretation given to it by those challenging its authenticity: it is impossible to refute such an understanding, but it can be set aside, because it is not the only possible one, and then this rescript can be accepted as genuine. In the end, the conclusions are clear. Serenniy Granian was placed in such a position that many enemies appeared against Christians, but there were no informers. In the so-called mandata principis, that is, in the instructions that the sovereigns gave to the rulers of individual provinces - proconsuls, presids - they were ordered, along with latrones, to persecute motu proprio and sacrileges. The position of the officials was quite difficult: due to the decree of Trajan, they should not have paid attention to the cries of the crowd that strict measures should be taken against Christians, due to the absence of informers, even though they themselves were fundamentally convinced that a cry against the atheists was not a crime. They therefore appealed to the emperor to change Trajan's practice and give them motu proprio permission to persecute Christians. But Adrian does not want to deviate from the practice of his predecessor, does not allow coercitio in the sense of the right of initiative of the ruler himself in the persecution of Christians, but insists on a formal, judicial review of the case. It goes without saying that, from the point of view of the emperors, Christianity itself is a crime; but since the investigation was carried out judicially, the proconsul could slow down the case by observing various formalities. Adrian does not cancel Trajan's Rescript, but confirms only that point that prescribes that Christians should be judged only by the laws. That Trajan's rescript was not canceled is indisputable: its effect is easy to trace in the history of subsequent persecutions. Martyrs under Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius There is only one reliable news about the persecution under Hadrian: the Roman Bishop Telesphorus in 135 or 137, according to Irenaeus, died a martyr. Irenaeus is the only witness to this, and nothing more is known about the martyrdom of Telesphorus. The reign of Antoninus Pius (July 10, 138 – March 7, 161) saw two martyrdoms: Bishop Polycarp in Smyrna and several martyrs in Rome. Date of martyrdom of St. Polycarpa is highly controversial. This martyrdom, strictly speaking, constitutes a cross for chronologists; A lot of paper has been written on this issue and, however, it cannot be considered advanced to a final decision. According to Eus. hist. eccl. IV, 15, St. Polycarp suffered under Marcus Aurelius (7 March 161–17 March 180), but the year of his reign is not determined. According to Eus.-Hieron. Chron., his martyrdom was in the 7th year of M. Aurelius (167–168). Previous scholars dated this martyrdom to around 166. But in 1867, the work of the French scientist Waddington (Waddington, Memoire sur la chronologic de la vie du rheteur Aelius Aristide) was published, which produced a revolution in science: the death of St. Polycarp began to be attributed to 155–156. Currently, there is a shift towards the previous opinion. Waddington was joined by: Renan, Aube, Lipsius, Hilgenfeld, Gebhardt, Harnack. Against Waddington: Keim (1878), Wieseler, Langen, Reville, Uhlhom, A.P. Lebedev. A whole literature has emerged on the issue of this controversial date. Keim's view can obviously be called traditional; his opponents believe that the testimony of Eusebius cannot be decisive. St. Polycarp suffered either a) about 155 (A. Harnack, J.V. Lightfoot: February 23 [Saturday] 155 [at Vruce-summer AF]), or b) about 166–167 (Chronicon Paschale: March 26, Holy Saturday, 163; but in 163 Vruce-summer DS, March 26 was on Friday). Question about the day and year of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp is primarily a material question about our chronological sources. Marturion St. Polycarp (the letter of the Smyrna church to the Philomilean church in Phrygia) consists of a) a text that is almost completely accepted into the church history of Eusebius (IV, 5), and b) a chronological appendix (appendix: “Marturei de”), which Eusebius does not cite in the church history. Keim's supporters either directly refuse to accept this addition as a later one, or do not attach full significance to it. Waddington's supporters accept the evidence of this increase as reliable and worthy of full attention. a) If only the text of the martyrdom is reliable, then we know that St. Polycarp suffered 1) with the unnamed proconsul Asiae, 3) ontoV sabbatou megalou [NB: without a member]. b) If the appendix is ​​also reliable, then we know, moreover, that St. Polycarp suffered 1) under the proconsul Statius Square (Statiou Kodratou), 2) under Bishop Philip Trallian, 4) 2nd Xanfik (mhnoV xanqikou deutera istamenou), 5) February 23rd (pro epta kalandwn martiwn). Reputable scientists decide that appendix is ​​also reliable. In fact, from the inscriptions it is clear that G[aioV] IoulioV FilippoV TrallianoV was asiarchV olumpiadi SAB (followed in 149–153); it is also called arciereuV in the writings. The question is: to what extent does the solution of the first question (material) in the sense of alternative b advance us in resolving the question of the year of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp? This brings us face to face with an exegetical question. 1) According to the exact words of St. Irenaeus, Polycarp himself said that he “spoke with John and the others (twn loipwn) who saw the Lord.” Irenaeus himself writes: “Polycarp was not only a disciple of the apostles (upo apostolwn maqhteuqeiV) and treated many (pollwn) who saw Christ, but was also appointed by the apostles (upo apostolwn katastaqeiV) to Asia as a bishop (episkopoV) in the church of Smyrna” (III, 3:4). 2) St. Polycarp himself (in the text of martyrdom) says: “for eighty-six years I have served Christ,” ogdohkonta kai ex eth douleuw autw. This means - aaa) or: “I am 86 years old from birth”, bbb) or (more likely): “I’ve been a Christian for 86 years.” I. If Polycarp suffered in 155, then in 69 he (aaa) was born and around the year 100 he could have been appointed bishop in Smyrna by the apostles. The matter is even simpler if he converted to Christianity in 69 (bbb). II. But if he suffered in 166, then only in 80 he (bbb) converted to Christianity, or maybe he was just born (aaa) and only around 110 he became a bishop. Quaeritur: aa) could he have been made apostles in 110? bb) having been born in 80, could he have dealt (let's say from 92-95) with many who saw (60 years ago) the Lord? Therefore – III. Already the text prejudges the question rather in favor of 155. IV. Asiarchate - the bishopric of Philip Trallian favors a date around the year 155. V. Apparently, this same year is also favorable for the proconsulate of Statius Quadrata. In 1867, the French academic Waddington, in his study “On the Life of the Rhetorian Aelius Aristides,” based on data in the ieroi logoi of this rhetorician, concluded that “Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia in May 154 or 155 (earliest: 153).” But in reality, as W. Schmid showed in an article about Aristides in the Rheinisches Museum B. 48 (1893), Waddington’s entire chronology is not firm (Aristides was probably born in 129, not in 117) and in the ieroi logoi of Aristides the name Statius Quadratus is not named at all. Consequently, the belief of scientists that the ieroi legoi somehow “illuminate” the question of the year of death of St. Polycarp, is not based on anything. But even assuming that Waddington’s calculations are not entirely accurate, we must give preference to an earlier date (c. 155). It is known that Lucius Statius Quadratus was consul ordinarius as early as 142. At that time, three pairs of consuls were replaced every year. Naturally, with such a number, not all consulars could receive the place of proconsuls, so the provinces were given to them by lot. But, in any case, it is easier to admit that Art. Square received the province 12 years after his consulate, which suggests that he had been waiting in line for about 25 years. Consequently, the year of the proconsulate of Statius Quadratus is established on the basis of the appendix, not vice versa: not the year of the death of St. Polycarp on the basis of the proconsulate of Statius Quadratus. Based on all this data, we can admit that St. Polycarp suffered either in 155 or around 155. The question still remains about the day of his death. It is absolutely indisputable that aaa) 2 xanthics according to the pan-Asian calendar corresponds to February 23 = ante diem septimum kalendas martias. But I consider (in view of the fact that in the text of martyrdom there is a clear comparison of the death of Polycarp with the death of Christ on the cross) it is indisputable that bbb) “Great Saturday” was the 15th of Nisan, i.e. the day of Easter (let’s not forget that St. Polycarp was a “fourteener”). And therefore, St. Polycarp suffered bbv) because it was not February 23 (Saturday) 155, because in 155 the full moon (and even the lunar eclipse visible in Smyrna!) occurred only on the night of March 6-7: and therefore, February 23 probably fell on the third day of the lunar month, not on the 15th. And besides, no matter how erroneous the Jews were in their calendar calculations, I consider it completely incredible that ggy) the Jewish 15th of Nisan in the 2nd century could ever fall on February 23, i.e. a whole month earlier than the spring equinox. The solution is probably this: St. Polycarp suffered on the 15th of Nisan, 2nd Xanthicus, but not according to the pan-Asian calendar, but according to the local Smyrna calendar. The mere correspondence of 2 Xanthic with 15 Nisan proves that in Smyrna they then counted not according to the lunar months, but according to the solar months. But to which Julian number the Smyrna 2nd Xanthic corresponds is unknown to any scientist (of course, I consider pro epta kalandwn martiwn a later insertion into the appendix). One should only remember that in Antioch the 1st of the Macedonian month DioV (which according to the Asian calendar is artificially adjusted to September 23) fell on November 1st and the 1st Xanthic on April 1st. In Smyrna, the Macedonian lunar months (in the transition to the solar year) could be brought closer to the Roman ones in the same way as they were equalized in Antioch. The whole matter here depended on the setting of the intercalation month, embolimoV mhn. If in Smyrna the embolimic month was DustroV, then the 1st of the following Xanthic should have fluctuated within 29 days, and it could easily have happened that in the year when the solar calendar was introduced in Smyrna, the 1st of Xanthic fell on the 1st of April. It is not impossible, therefore, that St. Polycarp suffered on Saturday, April 2, Nisan 15 (astronomical full moon), 158. But this is one of many possibilities, and the chronological question about the day of the death of St. Polycarp should still be considered scientifically unresolved and insoluble. Martyrdom of St. Polycarp is the first in history about which there is reliable information. Therefore, it should be addressed with special attention. In Smyrna, 12 Christians from Philadelphia were given to beasts. One of them, Quintus, who himself appeared before the tribunal, saw the animals, became afraid and renounced Christ. But the other, Germanicus, attracted general attention with his courage. The heroic death of Germanicus only aroused the rage of the crowd. Voices were heard: “Death to the godless (aire touV aqeouV)! look for Polycarp! Detectives were sent for Polycarp. The Bishop of Smyrna wanted to stay in his house in Smyrna. But his associates convinced him to evade danger, and he retired to an estate located not far from Smyrna. Meanwhile, the detectives acted. Convinced by the same friends, Polycarp decided to move to another estate. But then the police managed to capture two slaves, they were tortured, and they discovered the whereabouts of Polycarp. With a significant detachment of soldiers, armed, the detectives came to the place where Polycarp was. He remained in the upper room and could have escaped their hands this time too. But he chose to remain in place and, saying: “The will of the Lord be done,” he went out to meet the detectives. When they saw the venerable elder, they felt ashamed of their own weapons, which they had stocked up on, as if speaking out against the robber. The bishop offered them dinner - it was late on Friday, and he himself asked permission to pray. For two hours he prayed for all Christians, for the entire universal church. It was already morning when those who came to arrest him took him (on a donkey) to Smyrna. On the road they met a carriage in which one of the municipal leaders of Smyrna, the so-called Irinarch, was riding along with his father. They asked the bishop to sit in the carriage and began to convince him to avoid the threatening danger: “What’s wrong with saying: kurie kaisar, make a sacrifice and thereby save a life?” The bishop replied: “I will not do what you advise me.” From persuasion, these municipal dignitaries turned to threats and curses, and finally pushed Polycarp out of the carriage. The elderly man injured his leg, but calmly continued to walk towards the city. On Holy Saturday, Polycarp was brought to the stage. The news spread throughout the crowd: “Polycarp has been arrested.” There was such a noise that it was impossible to hear a single word clearly. Polycarp appeared before the proconsul who was there. He began the interrogation: “Are you Polycarp?” When the bishop recognized himself as Polycarp, the proconsul addressed him with the usual words: “Have pity on your venerable age and do not bring the matter to your destruction; swear by the genius of Caesar, change your mind, say: death to the godless.” Polycarp sadly and sternly looked at the raging crowd sitting in the circus, pointed at it with his hand and said, turning his eyes to the sky: “aire touV aqeouV.” “Swear by the genius of Caesar,” continued the proconsul, “and blaspheme Christ.” Polycarp replied: “I have served Him for 86 years and have not suffered any offense from Him; how can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?” The proconsul continued to persuade Polycarp to renounce: “Swear by the genius of Caesar, and I will let you go.” Then Polycarp remarked: “It is in vain that you pretend that you do not understand me, offering to swear by the genius of Caesar. If you do not want to understand me, I will tell you clearly: listen: I am a Christian. And if you want to know what a Christian is, then set a special day and listen to me.” The proconsul looked at the crowd sitting in the circus and said: “Convince the people.” “Only to you,” answered the bishop, “I give the honor of speaking with you, respecting in you the representative of God-ordained power, and I do not consider these worthy that I should justify myself before them.” “I have animals,” said the proconsul, “I will give you to them if you do not renounce. And if you are not afraid of animals, then I will burn you.” Polycarp replied that the temporary fire, which will go out in a few hours, is not terrible compared to the eternal fire. “Why are you delaying? do as you please.” Then the proconsul ordered to announce through a herald: “Polycarp admitted himself to be a Christian.” Hearing this, the crowd burst into cries of rage: “Polycarp is the teacher of wickedness, the father of Christians; he rejects our gods." The Jews, who were at the circus on that holiday, also joined the pagans. The people demanded that a lion be released against Polycarp. But for circus games, staging a lion was expensive. Therefore, the asiarch Philip replied that the games appointed for the previous holiday were over and that therefore Polycarp would not be given to the lions. Then the people shouted that Polycarp should be burned. It was in this sense that the proconsul’s verdict took place. Pagans and Jews began to carry flammable materials and put them in the fire. Soon the fire was ready. It was touching for Christians to see that the elderly bishop, having undressed, began to take off his shoes himself (before the believers took off his shoes). When he undressed, they wanted to nail him to a post. But Polycarp, rejecting this, said: “Leave me like this. He who gives me the strength to endure the fire will give me the strength to remain motionless on the fire without nails.” He then said a short prayer of thanks that the Lord had honored him with the honor of martyrdom. At the end of the prayer the fire was lit. But the flame formed an arc around Polycarp and did not touch the body of the martyr. Then, by order of the proconsul, the confector stabbed Polycarp to death with a sword. They decided not to give his body to the Christians and burned it at the stake, so that the faithful could collect only some of the precious remains of their respected bishop. The holy bishop remains from beginning to end a high example of moral strength. His every action is marked by remarkable calm. There is nothing provocative or irritating in his attitude towards power. He does not want to ask for martyrdom and, as far as possible within the limits of the Christian conscience, tries to ward off the danger. The compilers of the martyrdom of Polycarp took advantage of his martyrdom in order to give a lesson against the agitation of minds that was caused by Montanism. What is also remarkable is the sacred nobility with which he refuses to defend himself before such a tribunal, which has no legal authority over him and is not disposed to listen to a fair defense. The representative of the authorities generally maintains a neutral position and rather restrains the crowd than encourages it. The proconsul, inviting Polycarp to convince the people, seems to want to make it clear that he personally has nothing against his release; one can even say that both the local municipal authorities and the proconsul himself respect the personality of the venerable old man. Polycarp, from the point of view of the fundamental principles of Roman law, was convicted innocently: he had enemies, but there was no accuser; and such a person is declared innocent, innocens, by Roman law. The trial against Polycarp has that incorrect appearance, which was probably mentioned in the report of Serennius Granian to the Emperor Hadrian. Having no accusers, the government, under the pressure of the cries of the crowd, itself takes the initiative of the trial. This is against the provision of Trajan's rescript, which states that Christians should not be sought out, although, on the other hand, it is not against the more general conclusion that the duties of the proconsul lay sacrilegos conquirere. Polycarp subtly makes it clear that the proconsul did not act according to the law if he submitted the matter to the judgment of the people. The further procedure had the character of a natural process and the controlling line is the famous rescript of Trajan. The matter begins with a strictly official, obligatory question: “Are you Polycarp?” Next, the charge of violating religious laws, crimen sacrilegii, was brought, perhaps because it was more legal, because, by virtue of Trajan’s rescript, the process against Christians should begin only when there is an accuser. That Polycarp is a Christian becomes clear in the further development of the process. The proconsul even avoids formulating this indictment, which was supposed to bring the trial closer to its fatal denouement. He seems to be deliberately offering the mildest form of renunciation of Christianity. He demands from Polycarp not a sacrifice to the gods, but only an oath to the genius of Caesar, in which the municipal representatives did not see anything bad. Instead of worshiping the gods, to cleanse oneself from suspicion of atheism, the proconsul only suggests saying: “death to the godless,” that is, he proposes a formula that Polycarp could have repeated in its sense. I am even inclined to think that Polycarp’s martyrium does not accurately convey the course of his trial and the demand: “blaspheme Christ” was expressed by the proconsul only when Polycarp himself explained that he was a Christian. Here you can see almost all the moments of the process that Pliny established, except perhaps for one sacrifice. Here there is a proposal to come to your senses, swear by the genius of Caesar and blaspheme Christ; there is also a threat. Polycarp's consciousness that he is a Christian here replaces the death sentence itself; it is announced to the crowd through a herald. Thus, the proconsul is afraid to state the fact, but when it is discovered, condemnation is recognized as inevitable. Nomen ipsum punitur; there is no talk of flagitia here. Perhaps the most venerable personality of the venerable bishop made accusations of such vile crimes unthinkable, or the authorities of Rome were sufficiently convinced since the time of Pliny that rumors of this kind were devoid of any basis, or perhaps the authoritative silence of Trajan's Rescript relieved the authorities of the obligation to carry out an investigation on such suspicion. Thus. Polycarp was condemned as a result of a legal process that directly presupposes the effect of Trajan's rescript, or, if you prefer, such a process that caused Hadrian's rescript. In the penultimate year of the reign of Emperor Antoninus, a new martyrdom occurred in Rome itself. The case takes place in the last month of 160 or in the first two months of 161. This process is described in the second apology of Justin the Philosopher, because this process gave rise to its writing. This process is interesting in the sense that it reveals how personal conflicts could lead Christians to martyrdom. One noble Roman woman, while still a pagan, married an extremely depraved man and for some time was his worthy partner. But after converting to Christianity, she repented, changed her behavior and expressed dissatisfaction with her husband's behavior, asking him to change his lifestyle. Her requests were unsuccessful, and she decided to demand a divorce. Offended by this, her husband accused her of being a Christian. The accused, before answering this accusation, turned to the emperor with a request for permission to arrange her household affairs first. This permission followed. Having suffered at least a temporary setback here, the husband, in irritation, brought an accusation of Christianity against his wife’s teacher, Ptolemy. The latter was immediately imprisoned and, after a rather long imprisonment, was presented to the prefect of the capital, Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who only asked him if he was a Christian, and when he admitted that he was a Christian, he condemned him to death. The Christian Lucius, who was present at this trial, immediately turned to the prefect with a protest: “You are acting unworthy of our emperors, one pious, the other a philosopher; You condemned to death a man who was not accused of any crime, neither robbery nor murder, and was condemned only because he admitted that he was a Christian.” The prefect, in response to this, only asked: “It seems to me that you are a Christian,” and when he admitted that he was a Christian, he condemned him to death too. A third man came forward, confessed to be a Christian, and was also executed. Thus, it becomes clear how Trajan's formula, condemning execution for nomen ipsum, was used in trials against Christians. The government itself, apparently, does not suspect Christians of any special crime, because this can only explain the highest mercy that was granted to the Christian by deferring the trial for her to arrange her household affairs. However, recognition of Christianity is considered completely sufficient to complete the process. In the first years of the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, precisely 163–167, probably in 165, the martyrdom of Justin the Philosopher himself and 6 of his disciples occurred. The investigation over them is carried out by the prefect of the capital, Quintus Junius Rusticus, one of the most educated people of his time, the teacher of Marcus Aurelius. And perhaps his philosophical inclinations also explain the fact that he, apparently, is interested in Christianity, poses to the accused questions that go beyond the narrow legal boundaries outlined by Trajan (questions: where do Christians gather? To which philosophical school does Justin belong? What is the teaching of Christians?). But both Justin himself and all his disciples were condemned to death for confessing themselves as Christians. Thus, their martyrium is also an application of Trajan's rescript against nomen ipsum. The first years of Marcus Aurelius do not represent any change in the position of Christians. Apparently, only Trajan's rescript is valid. But the last years of the reign of Marcus Aurelius were marked by some orders that have not reached us, which produced a significant change in the state of Christianity. Apologists of Christianity (for example, Melito) complain about some new decree by which Christians are persecuted and given over to be sacrificed to all the scoundrels and slanderers who take advantage of the processes against Christians to profit from their property, and the persecution is widespread. It affects Western Asia and Gaul. Kels, who lived at that time, directly says that Christians are sought out everywhere to be given to death. We obtain particularly detailed information about the situation of Christians at that time from the message of the Gallic churches - Lyons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia (Eus. V, 1). The trials against Christians fall in the summer months of 177 (the 17th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius). Christians in these Gallic cities were declared deprived of all civil rights. Houses, baths and public markets were closed to them; They are forbidden to even appear on the streets. Wherever they appeared, stones were thrown at them, they were robbed and subjected to all kinds of oppression. In the absence of the president (legatus Augusti pro praetore) in Lyon, when all public order was disrupted, the commandant of the city and the municipal authorities finally decided to take upon themselves a formal intervention in the cause of the Christians in order to put an end to the anarchy. In anticipation of the president, arrests began in huge numbers. The persecutors of Christians, without distinguishing their civil status, took slaves and free, noble and ignorant; After preliminary interrogation with torture, Christians were imprisoned. Finally, the praeses arrived. The torture began again. Among the Christians, St., a deacon of the Vienna church, and Attalus, who came from Asia, but was considered one of the pillars of the Lyon church, especially attracted attention. During the torture to which Christians were subjected, one young man, well educated, Vettius Epagathus, offered to act as a defender of Christians and prove that they were not doing anything bad, that they were accused of godlessness and disrespect for the sovereign in vain (mhden aqeon mhde asebeV estin en hmin, “there is nothing godless and nothing wicked among us”). But the praeses, in response to this proposal, asked him: “Aren’t you also a Christian?” And when Vettius answered in the affirmative, he was numbered among the martyrs. As a result of very cruel tortures, many died as confessors, but it turned out that up to 10 people fell away. But what is especially characteristic of this time is that those who fell away were not released, as required by Trajan’s rescript, but were imprisoned in the same prisons in which they were imprisoned and firmly established in Christianity. This joint imprisonment for many who fell away served as a reason for repentance and conversion to Christianity. This is apparently explained by the fact that at that time in Lyon there was a particularly strong suspicion that all sorts of lawlessness was happening at Christian meetings (thyestiae epulae et incesti concubitus); Therefore, those who renounced Christianity were still tortured in order to get them to accuse Christians of these flagitia. Since slaves who had nothing in common with Christians were captured along with Christians, they, avoiding torture, simply repeated the words that the soldiers dictated to them, and thus there was already a formal basis for accusing Christians of such crimes. Along with many Christians, the elderly Bishop of Lyons, Pofinus, was also taken. When the president interrogated him and when he declared himself a worshiper of the Christian God, the president asked: “Who is the Christian God?” Whether due to a personal character less gentle than that of Polycarp, or perhaps due to the changed relationship of the civil authorities to Christianity itself, Pofinus gave an answer that was not as favorable as Polycarp. He said: “You will know if you are worthy.” This brought the rude soldier, like the president, into a wild rage, and he gave Pofin alive to be desecrated by the mob. The soldiers who were there subjected Pofin to various tortures, and those who stood in the distance threw shards at him and showered him with all sorts of curses. After being taken to a stuffy dungeon, Pofin died two days after his torment. But here the Christians observed the remarkable phenomenon that first-time prisoners, who, as untested, were in greater danger of renouncing Christianity during torture, were dying from the stuffiness in the dungeons. On the contrary, those who returned with torn limbs turned out to be more resilient. For example, Saint, during the most inhuman and prolonged torture (he did not say anything to all questions about his name and origin except two words: christianus sum) was torn to pieces and disfigured so that he did not look like a person, but when a few days later he was presented again for torture, he appeared to be healthy. Among Christians, particular fear was aroused by the Christian slave Blandina, for whom they feared that, due to her youth, she would not withstand cruel torture. But she endured a whole arsenal of torture for a whole day, so that the tired executioners declared that she had overcome them. During the most cruel tortures, she did not say anything except the words: “I am a Christian, and we don’t do anything bad” (apparently in response to well-known suspicions). Attalus endured all the torture heroically. But since he declared that he was a Roman citizen, the president did not consider himself entitled to condemn him to death and turned to the emperor with two questions: how to deal with Roman citizens and how to deal with those who fell away from Christianity and who remained faithful to their religion? The emperor replied: those who are firm in Christianity should be executed: Roman citizens with the sword, others sent ad bestias, and apostates set free. This rescript was carried out, with the exception that, to please the people, the president nevertheless gave Attalus himself to the beasts. Blandina's fifteen-year-old brother Pontik and other martyrs died in the amphitheater. Their remains were burned and thrown into the Rhone. Marcus Aurelius' answer was completely in the spirit of Trajan's rescript. This shows that Trajan's Rescript had the significance of a fundamental law at this time; the new edict of Marcus Aurelius (which opened the persecution) did not cancel it, but only supplemented and modified it. In response, the president of Lyons, Marcus Aurelius, canceled his temporary order, and Trajan's rescript remained in full force. Position of Christians under Commodus With the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, a change for the better came in the position of Christians. The son of the philosopher emperor Commodus Antoninus (180–192) ascended the Roman throne, putting an end to the brilliant era of the Antonines. Commodus was one of the most unworthy of Caesars, a man who, by a whim of fate, instead of being born a gladiator, was born an emperor. He truly considered his exploits in the circus to be his most glorious deeds. Gifted by nature with gigantic strength, he went out alone against a lion and pierced through an elephant with a spear. One of the main activities of the Senate under Commodus was recording the emperor's circus exploits in state acts. There is also a strong streak of cruelty in his treatment of people. In particular, he showed himself to be terrible for the priests of pagan religions, who were obliged, according to the rituals of their cults, to subject themselves to torture; in fact, they allowed themselves some indulgences in this. But Commodus ordered that the priests of Bellona seriously cut off their hands, and the priests of Isis beat themselves in the chest to death. Despite this character of Commodus, the position of Christians under him turned out to be more tolerable than in previous times. To a certain extent this depended on the fact that he did not pay attention to state affairs and cared even less about the Roman religion. Moreover, in recent years, his concubine, the Christian Markia (jiloqeoV pallakh), “the God-loving concubine,” as Hippolytus calls her, has gained great influence on him. The concubinage then had a special social significance: it was, so to speak, a left-handed marriage, today’s morganatic one. Many people found legal marriage inconvenient; it was prohibited for some classes, for example soldiers. Even such a sovereign as Marcus Aurelius, whose morality cannot be doubted, when he was widowed, despite the fact that there was no shortage of brides, considered it indecent for himself to marry again and give his children a stepmother, and chose concubinage. Vespasian had a concubine, not a wife. The position of such concubins was so honorable that they received the title of empresses and enjoyed great influence. Consequently, Markia’s position did not represent anything scandalous for Christianity; this phenomenon was then even normal and inevitable. This Markia favorably influenced the emperor for the fate of Christians. She made the half-wild emperor do whatever she wanted, and therefore a rare phenomenon took place under her: Christians exiled to the mines for their faith received liberation. A list of these Christian confessors was demanded from the Roman Bishop Victor (189–198), and all those listed on it were returned from their place of exile. Thus, as the affairs of the empire worsened, the situation of the Christians improved. But the reign of Commodus showed that the general trend is one thing, and individual facts are another. Neither Markia nor the emperor could radically change the situation of Christians. There were also cases of bloody persecution of Christians. Trajan's Rescript remained in force under Commodus; therefore, during his reign there were cases of martyrdom. The favorable attitude of the central government was reflected in the provinces only in that the presidents did not see encouragement for the persecution of Christians; but Trajan’s rescript opened up the full legal possibility of this persecution for the presides if they wanted to persecute Christians: and in some cases the presides could not free Christians from trial and execution. In the first year of the reign of Commodus (July 17, 180), the Ischli martyrs, from a place in Numidia with the Phoenician name Isclh, in Latin Scili, martyres scilitani, suffered in Carthage. This process, unfortunately, was preserved in the acts only at the final stage, since the martyrs appeared before the Carthaginian tribunal only at the end of it in order to receive condemnation. They were required to swear an oath to the genius of Caesar, were invited to come to their senses, and were given a period of 30 days to do so. But the martyrs all refused to take advantage of this reprieve, firmly confessed themselves as Christians and were condemned to death for this. They were not questioned about flagitia. The proconsul only asked Sperat: what kind of books were found in their closet? What gives particular urgency to the question of the acts of these martyrs in science is the fact that along with the martyrs, sacred books were also captured, regarding which Christians gave unclear instructions. Protestant criticism builds entire towers of Babel on this fact about the state of the sacred canon in 180. In Rome itself, under Commodus, a highly educated Christian, apparently of the senatorial class, suffered, Apollonius, according to Jerome - as a result of the denunciation of a slave (a servo [alia lectio: a Severo] proditus). Before the praetorian prefect Perennius (Perennis 183–186), who is remarkable for the fact that under the semi-wild Commodus he did everything possible for the welfare of the state for the first minister, Apollonius was accused of being a Christian. Apollonius admitted this. Perenny transferred his trial, as a senator, to the Senate. Here Apollonius made a brilliant speech in defense of Christianity. If the previous laws, to a certain extent, could be applied to Christians, as dark individuals in need of guardianship, then when an educated man with the position of a senator spoke, the question arose: should he not be given freedom in the matter of judging religion, especially since the Romans at that time were not supporters of repression of religious beliefs. But it was decided that belonging to Christianity should be considered a crime even in relation to a senator, and Apollonius was convicted. The Senate remained on the basis of the “ancient laws” (Trajan’s rescript). But, adds Eusebius (V, 25), the accuser himself was executed according to the law prohibiting such denunciations: according to the verdict of Perennius, his legs were broken. There is some kind of misunderstanding in this increase. Some scholars believed that the informer was executed according to Nerva's law, which prohibited slaves from informing on their masters. But Gieseler already showed the inconsistency of this explanation. It is not known whether the informer was a slave (servus), or whether he was only called Severus. Then, according to Nerva’s law, it was possible either to execute the informer, and then there could be no question of executing the accused, or to recognize the denunciation of the slave (this was allowed in causa majestatis), and then, if the denunciation turned out to be fair (as here) and the accused was executed, there could be no question of executing the accuser. Other scholars (Keim) suggest that Eusebius was misled by the forged edict of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate, in which denunciations against Christians were prohibited under penalty of death. Particular attention has been paid to the martyrdom of Apollonius only in recent times, although these acts of martyrdom have long been published in an Armenian translation. But the saying can be attached to the Armenian language: Graeca sunt, non leguntur (not readable in Greek), with the modification: Armeniaca sunt, non leguntur (not readable in Armenian). Therefore, when the English scientist Conybeare (F. S. Conybeare, The apologie and acts of Apollonius. London 1894) translated these acts, everyone started talking about them, although they did not shed much light on history. Armenian sources do not explain by whom Apollonius was betrayed to death. In the provinces, the position of Christians very often depended on the personal arbitrariness of the presidents. Tertullian collected several examples of African proconsuls often protecting Christians from the rage of the mob. One of these proconsuls (Cincius Severus) informed the Christians of the formula for how Christians accused before his tribunal had to answer in order to be released. Another (Vespronius Candidus) refused to satisfy the desire of the people, who demanded the execution of one Christian, and motivated his refusal by the fact that satisfying such a demand would only mean supporting public unrest. The third (Asper 197), when one accused Christian was brought before him, limited himself to subjecting him to mild torture and, without bringing the matter to death and sacrifice, released him, telling his assessors that it was extremely unpleasant for him to get involved in such processes. Finally, about the fourth (Pudens) it is said that the case of a certain Christian was brought to him, the proconsul and propraetor, for a final decision. He had already confessed to being a Christian, and a document about this was sent to this judge. The proconsul conducted a second inquiry, after which it became clear that the accusation of the Christian was preceded by concussio, i.e. extortion, which was considered dishonorable from the point of view of the ethics of that time. Then the proconsul tore up this document, declaring that he would not try a person in the absence of an accuser, and on this basis he released the accused Christian. All these facts prove that the government could do quite a lot for Christians. Such patronage of Christians, no matter how limited, must in any case be appreciated in view of the special position of the Christian Church in Africa, because the rage of the people there seemed to make itself felt more strongly than in other places, and the cries: “Christianos ad leones” (“Christians to the lions”) were heard there more often than anywhere else. The most insignificant reason was enough to incite the rage of the mob against Christians. Thus, the same Tertullian reports that on the occasion of the triumph of the Emperor Severus over his rivals Albinus and Pescennius, gladiatorial games were given in Carthage. Despite the fact that the Christians declared their allegiance more fully than the pagans, because in Carthage one could count more pagans than Christians who did not decorate their doors with laurel wreaths and candles, however, for the refusal of the Christians to participate in the spectacle, the crowd began to shout that they were “hostes populi romani, irreligiosi in caesares” (“enemies of the Roman people who do not honor the Caesars”). Thus, it depended on the arbitrariness of the proconsuls and even lower officials to start the persecution and to stop it. Some were proactive towards the demands of the people or even agitated the people. For example, the prefect Caecilius Capella, a supporter of Pescennius Nigra, brutally persecuted Christians in Byzantium, besieged by the troops of the North, probably attributing their military failures to them, and when Byzantium in 196 was supposed to open the gates to the victorious troops, Capella exclaimed: “Well, your happiness, Christians (christiani, gaudete)!” The type of execution of Christians also depended on the arbitrariness of the proconsuls. For example, the proconsul Scapula in Africa proconsularly condemned Christians to be burned, while at the same time the president of Mauritania only beheaded them. The position of Christians under the emperors of eastern origin and their successors before the persecution under Decius After the death of Emperor Commodus, two emperors were replaced in a short time. Then (from April 13, 193) the imperial crown passed to Septimius Severus (193–211), who prevailed over his opponents. This was also an optimus imperator, one of the best the Roman Empire had ever known, an extremely active and fair man. Severus was not of Roman origin: he was a purebred Punic, originally from Tripoli (classified as Latin Africa). His sister, who came to visit her brother the emperor in Rome, knew Latin so poorly that the emperor felt ashamed of her. His wife was also of Syrian origin. This kind of situation poses the danger that weak characters, when they find themselves in it, often try to play the role of a nobleman and can do a lot of things that would make them forget their plebeian origin. But Septimius Severus was a man with strong moral principles. Since this sovereign was closely connected with the east, he naturally should not have had the prejudice in favor of the Roman religion that pure-blooded Roman emperors held. Perhaps, even before receiving the imperial throne, as the ruler of Africa (but according to Uhlhorn, already in Rome), the North proved its justice in relation to Christians by releasing several high-ranking senatorial officials (clarissimas feminas et clarissimos viros), who confessed to Christianity, and did not pay attention to the furious cries of the mob demanding their execution. Nothing definite is known regarding the situation of Christians in the first 10 years of his reign. Tertullian claims that Septimius Severus was favorable to Christians because one Christian, probably a slave, Proculus, healed him of an illness with oil. But the 10th year of his reign was marked by a turn in his policy towards Christians. In this year, Septimius Severus issued a law that has not survived to us, about which we only know that, under pain of severe punishment, he forbade the adoption of both the Jewish and Christian religions (judaeos fiere sub gravi poena vetuit, idem etiam de christianis sanxit). Thus, Christians here could be involved in someone else's history. If the Jews could declare themselves through successful propaganda and thereby attract public attention to themselves, then repression became necessary and the principle itself was put forward that everyone should follow their native faith, and not change it arbitrarily. This principle was to extend its effect to Christians, for whom the preaching of the gospel was a sacred duty. Perhaps, simultaneously with the same law, Septimius Severus issued an order that charges against persons belonging to unauthorized colleges (collegia illicita) should be submitted to Rome for consideration by the prefect of the capital. The effect of this law, or both together, apparently was not particularly widespread. But, in any case, it affected several areas in Europe, Asia, and Africa. This blow was so sudden for Christians and the persecution that took place seemed so cruel to contemporaries that one of the church writers (Jude), who explained the weeks of Daniel at that time, believed that the coming of the Antichrist had begun. For Alexandria, this, as far as is known, was the first persecution in which the Alexandrian church produced martyrs from among its midst. Of the persons who suffered at that time, we can mention, on the one hand, Leonidas, famous for being the father of the famous Origen, and then the Christian virgin Potamiena, who was slowly doused with boiling resin from the very sole to the head. This persecution had a rather strong impact on Africa, where Scapula was proconsul. On March 7 (probably) 203, several martyrs suffered in Carthage, probably as a result of the decree of the North against Christian propaganda, since these martyrs were among the catechumens. The acts of these martyrs (Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis cum sociis) are completely reliable: the first part of them is the record of the martyr Perpetua herself, the second is the record of eyewitnesses of their death. What is characteristic here is that most of the martyrs were captured in a state of catechumen, so that they were already baptized in prison by the presbyters who had penetrated there. In general, these martyrs make such a high impression that they can be placed on a level with Polycarp and the Gallic martyrs. Among these martyrs, women are especially prominent, primarily the free, well-educated matron Perpetua and the young slave Felicitatus. Perpetua's account introduces us to her spiritual mood: before her execution, she endured a difficult internal struggle with her family loyalties. When all these Christians were taken, even before the interrogation, her pagan father came to Perpetua and begged her not to recognize herself as a Christian. But Perpetua rejected this advice extremely simply. She pointed to her father at a jug (urceolus) standing nearby and asked: “Father! can this thing be called anything other than urceolus?” He answered: “No.” Then Perpetua said: “And in the same way I cannot say anything else about myself except that I am a Christian.” This decisive refusal infuriated the father so much that he was ready to scratch out her eyes, and he decided to subject his daughter to one of the most refined moral torments: she was married and was still breastfeeding her son; the father decided not to give her a child. And in imprisonment, unusual for a woman of noble birth and its stuffiness and cramped conditions, the most severe torture for her was precisely the thought that her son remained hungry at that time. When, finally, thanks to the mediation of Christian deacons who gave monetary gifts to the guards, the martyrs were taken out into the prison yard to breathe fresh air, and the baby was brought, Perpetua rejoiced to the point that she forgot the severity of her situation, and when she was allowed to take him into prison, this gloomy prison suddenly turned for her into the most luxurious of palaces. She and those taken into custody with her were still in a preliminary state before the final interrogation. Before the interrogation, Perpetua’s father again visited her, but this time he was extremely softened and moved. He now thought not to threaten, but to beg his daughter. The old man cried, begged to spare his own gray hair and the position of the entire family, which would not endure such a shame that from their family there would be a person executed as a criminal. He begged to remember the son who could live only by her. He threw himself at his daughter’s feet, wet them with tears and kissed her hands, calling her not daughter, but mistress (domina). But Perpetua stood firm and responded to all admonitions: “The will of the Lord be done when I am in catasta” (catasta is a place of interrogation, something like a dock). Finally the interrogation took place; father was present here. He first showed his son and begged for mercy on him. And the judge himself (procurator) convinced Perpetua to take pity on the father and baby and make a sacrifice for the health of the emperor. But Perpetua said: "Non facio." “Are you a Christian?” – the procurator then asked. She replied: “Christiana sum.” Thus, the fate of Perpetua and everyone taken with her was decided. Already in prison, all these catechumens were awarded holy baptism, because the leaders of the Christian Church found the opportunity to penetrate even through the prison locks. All the martyrs were condemned to fight with beasts on the day of celebration on the occasion of the birth of the emperor's son. Slave Felicity was pregnant at that time, and one of her most severe torments was the fear that according to the law, her execution, as she had been pregnant for 8 months, would be postponed and she would not have to suffer along with the others. But, fortunately for her, this situation was resolved by her premature birth. This birth was extremely difficult, so that the soldiers present here took pity on her and said: “If now you are suffering so much, then what will happen to you when they give you to the beasts?” She answered: “Currently I suffer because I suffer for myself, but then I will suffer for another, and this other will be in me and will suffer for me.” Felicity's baby was taken in by Christians. With the arrival of the day of celebration, all the surviving martyrs were to be taken to the circus. According to the custom that existed at that time, they wanted to dress men in the costumes of the priests of Saturn, and women in the costumes of the priestesses of Ceres. But the martyrs protested against this. They said: “We came here voluntarily, we decided to sacrifice our lives so as not to do anything like that, save us our freedom.” This request was respected. The Christians present noted as a special mercy that each of the martyrs was delivered from that type of death that was especially unpleasant to them. So, for example, Satur was ready to submit to the claws of any animal, but for him there was nothing more disgusting than a bear. Despite the fact that after he had been in the claws of a leopard without harm, it was ordered that the bear be released on him. But it happened that they could not drive the bear out of the den. Perpetua and Felicity were given over to be torn to pieces by a ferocissima vacca, and here the Christian martyr declared in herself the extraordinary ideal purity of a woman. Perpetua died with the dignity with which the highest female images of classical poetry died. This cow threw her horns for several times, and finally she fell into the arena. But although she was wounded and bleeding, her first thought was that the horns of the cow had torn her tunic and exposed her body, and therefore, with an extraordinary effort of will, she straightened the torn clothes and covered herself. Then she also remembered that her hair was disheveled. Since disheveled hair was a symbol of mourning, and she considered martyrdom especially joyful, she gathered so much strength that she straightened her hair and pinned it with a pin. Then, when she could get up, she went up to Felicity and, giving her her hand, helped her up. All the martyrs were wounded by animals, but not to death. Therefore, at the request of the people, it was ordered to “finish off” them. For this there was a special gladiator called a “confector”; there was a special place for this. But the bloodthirsty crowd shouted that they should be dealt with in the middle, so that their death would be visible to everyone. The martyrs gave each other the last “kiss of peace.” Satur, with extraordinary firmness, was the first to ascend to the place of death. The still young and inexperienced gladiator, who fell to finish off the martyrs, with a trembling hand inflicted several wounds on Perpetua, and finally she herself gathered the strength to point the knife at her throat. The persecution during the reign of Septimius Severus continued, probably, until the very end of his reign and in some places echoed even under his son Antoninus Caracalla (211–217). Caracalla himself in his childhood was so close to Judaism and, probably, to Christianity that historians mention one playmate of his childhood games, who was punished with rods for belonging to Judaism. From this emperor personally, who was not at all among the worthy bearers of the Roman crown, Christians were not subjected to any persecution. They remained in the same position under his successors Macrinus (217–218) and Antoninus Heliogabalus (218–222). This latter bore the name Heliogabala (or rather Elagabal) because, probably born in the east, he was a priest in Emesa in the church of the god El-gabal (the sun god was known by the Phoenicians under this name, although this very name means “mountain god”). The Roman soldiers, who were on campaign in the east, liked this Heliogabalus for his slender figure, and his relationship with the house of the North opened the way for him to the throne. In the person of Heliogabalus, one of the most demoralized emperors that history has ever known ascended the Roman throne. In this respect, he was not only not inferior to his predecessors Caracalla and Commodus, but surpassed them. The difference between his nature and the nature of Commodus was only in the fact that the latter was distinguished by the features of a gladiator, and Heliogabalus resembled only a buffoon. Commodus killed people cruelly and ferociously (for example, he wanted to dress senators in suits with wings and then shoot them like Stymphalian birds). On the contrary, Heliogabalus killed those close to him only as a joke. For example, they say that the parasites, whom he honored with the honor of sharing the royal meal, suddenly, on his orders, rained flowers and they were suffocated by their aroma. Or: sometimes he left his orgy companions to spend the night in the palace, locked them in a room, and suddenly at night he released lions, leopards, and bears on them; some of them died of fear, not suspecting that the animals were tame. Such an emperor, as a ruler, was not dangerous for Christians in any way, although he was well aware of their existence and propaganda. But Heliogabalus had one serious idea in his head, which he carried out throughout his reign. He wanted to destroy not only the Roman religion, the objects of worship of which he treated extremely carelessly and insultingly, but even throughout the world to introduce the veneration of his god El-gabal. He wanted to unite all religions under the supreme leadership of El-gabal. Pagan shrines from eastern temples were brought to Rome to the El-Gabala temple. Heliogabalus especially counted on Jews, Samaritans and Christians: id agens, ne quis Romae deus nisi Heliogabalus coleretur; dicebat praeterea, judaeorum et samaritanorum religiunes et christianam devotionem illuc transferendam, ut omnium culturarum secretum Heliogabali sacerdotium teneret. Thus, if this emperor had reigned longer and had finally become firmly established in his idea of ​​forcing both Jews and Christians to profess the monotheism of which he was a representative, then, of course, the position of Christians during his reign would have changed for the worse. This emperor, who killed people even as a joke, would have raised such a cruel persecution that not one of the best emperors of Rome was capable of. When this disgraceful emperor was assassinated, the throne passed to his cousin Aurelius Alexander Severus (222–235). He was a man of eastern, probably Syrian, origin. His mother Julia Mammea was also from the east. Alexander Sever was also an eclectic in his convictions, but of a more noble type than his cousin. He did not at all dream of any forced assimilation of all cults under the leadership of one deity and did not imagine other gods as cubiculars, slaves, or companions of his god. Therefore, the first act of his reign was the return to their places of those objects of worship that were brought to Rome by Heliogabalus. During his reign, the Roman religion appeared significantly purified from this foreign impurity. The religious syncretism to which this emperor was devoted resembled the so-called cult of geniuses. Recognizing deity in general, he did not reject the objects of any cult. In his own home chapel there were busts not only of gods, but also of those remarkable representatives of humanity who began some of the most important eras in religious history. So, for example, in his chapel, along with the busts of Apollonius of Tyana and Orpheus, there was, they say, a bust of Christ and a bust of Abraham. Alexander Severus thought of accepting Christ into the pantheon of pagan Roman gods, guided by the same thought that Adrian allegedly had in mind (Adrian, when building temples, did not place images of gods in some, and subsequently a rumor arose that he intended to dedicate these temples to the Christian God). But this pagan deification of Christ by Alexander Severus did not take place out of fear that then everyone would accept Christianity. His influential mother, who made her authority over her son feel everywhere and everywhere, even more than would be desirable for the empire, can be considered a strong patron of Christianity. During her stay in Antioch, probably in 226, she listened to the Christian discourses of the famous Origen. Under Alexander Severus, Christians could speak out quite openly in Rome. His biographer reports that he was extremely fond of one common saying of both the Christian and Jewish religions: what you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. This motto was displayed on many public buildings. He recommended Christians to Roman voters for public positions as an example of the need to elect the most worthy persons for such public positions. When during his reign in Rome some dispute arose over the right of ownership of some site in Rome between Christians and representatives of various public taverns (popinarii), the emperor, to whom this dispute was brought, decided the matter in favor of the Christians, saying that it was better that there be a place here for the veneration of any god than an inn. Thus, this emperor was a strong patron of Christians, although at the same time he did not issue any law that would legalize their position in the Roman Empire. Therefore, all his actions had the character of only temporary orders of the government, and not any organic regulations binding on the entire Roman Empire. In essence, the favorable reign of Alexander Severus for Christians was a harbinger of a future uncomfortable situation for them. The pagans became more and more familiar with Christians. This, on the one hand, was favorable for them, since various prejudices against them gradually fell away. But, on the other hand, it was unfavorable that the pagans recognized the internal structure of the Christian church and could therefore cause it the most significant harm. The order of Septimius Severus, which made such an impression on Christians that he was even mistaken for the Antichrist, was terrible in that it struck at the very essence of Christianity. If previously only the law “non licet esse vos” (“it is not right for you to be”) was in force, now the government realized that Christians, despite this, “are made” (fieri), that Christianity is an organically living being. In view of this, a blow that had not previously been thought of became possible; this was a serious obstacle to the spread of Christianity. Previously, a little man, when converting to Christianity, hoped that he would not be noticed soon, but now it became clear that the government distinguished between classes of Christians. Septimius Severus directed persecution against less solid elements - converts, although the latter could be most inspired by the religious idea. The persecution of Maximinus the Thracian is also distinguished by a similar feature. On March 19, 235, Alexander Severus was killed by a person who had benefited him, namely the commander-in-chief of all the troops, Maximinus (235–238), a native of Thrace, a man who distinguished himself by many military exploits. This rude successor to the throne of Alexander Severus treated with particular hatred everything that reminded him of his predecessor. Since Alexander Severus treated Christians favorably, Maximin discovered special hatred against Christians, as persons who stood on the side of his predecessor, whom he hated. It must, however, be fair that this persecution against the imaginary or real adherents of Alexander Severus turned not only on Christians, but also on the pagans themselves. All supporters of the previous regime were subjected to severe persecution, many were executed, others were deprived of all property. The persecution of Maximin is remarkable in that the famous Origen had to flee from him, who was especially exposed to danger at this time due to his proximity to the court of Alexander Severus due to relations with his mother. However, this persecution had only a local character, so that even in Cappadocia, where it was all the more dangerous because it coincided with the movement of the people against Christians due to earthquakes, Christians could still be saved, because the persecution was not carried out in all places at the same time. Emperor Maximin reigned very briefly (killed in May 238). There was very little religious in Maximin's motive for persecuting Christians. As a foreigner by birth, he was not devoted to the Roman state religion and marked his reign with the systematic plunder of Roman churches. Everything that was precious in them was taken to the treasury and melted down into coins. But one detail from his persecution involuntarily attracts the attention of researchers: this emperor gave orders that they should persecute mainly touV twn ekklhsiwn arcontaV, “leaders of the churches” (Eus.VI, 28). There is no reason to believe that it was directed exclusively against the heads of churches, but in general against prominent persons in Christian society. Despite the fact that throughout this era we encounter martyrdoms based on the Edict of Trajan, the orders of Septimius Severus and Maximinus reveal more and more familiarity with Christianity. If the edict of Septimius Severus strikes at the side that constitutes the life force of Christianity, namely its propaganda, then Maximin reveals familiarity with the structure of the Christian church, the government already knows how to distinguish new Christians from former Christians, the Christian hierarchy from ordinary laity. Maximin's persecution along this line is significant as a harbinger of the approaching storm; but in terms of its implementation it was sporadic and did not affect all Christians, and therefore for many places the time of Maximin was only a continuation of that relatively peaceful era that began for Christians with the death of Septimius Severus. The same state of affairs continued under Maximin's two successors, Gordian (238–244) and Philip (244–249). This latter was of Arabian origin and was so supportive of Christians that there was a legend that he himself was a Christian. But even more terrible was the revolution in the position of Christians when the crown passed at the end of 249 to Decius. Period three. The Christian Church as a society persecuted by the government itself Decius (249–251) left behind the glory of a good sovereign. But his features are not entirely clear, because he does not have a special biographer between the scriptores historiae augustae. In any case, with significant probability we can admit that he was a romantic by nature and set out to bring back to life the irrevocable past, restore the strength and glory of ancient Roman institutions and, thus, lay a solid foundation for Roman power. Nothing is known for certain about how devoted he was to the Roman religion. But undoubtedly, this sovereign cared like few others about restoring the ancient Roman purity of morals. His own purity is evidenced by one coin with the inscription: “pudicitiae Augusti” (to the chastity of Augustus). In the same way, he extremely valued this trait in others. A man who already lived in an era when the principate had time to put down strong historical roots, he, nevertheless, thought to support in all its meaning such a republican-aristocratic institution as the Senate. He even wanted to restore censorship, with all its broad ancient Roman rights, to supervise the morality of the Romans. The aristocratic Senate reacted sympathetically to this idea. The choice of the Senate fell on one impeccable senator, Valerian, but this latter himself refused to accept this position, finding that the rights associated with it exceed the competence of a private person, and time has so deviated from ancient antiquity that it is not favorable to the renewal of such a position. This, at any rate, shows that Decius can rightly be characterized as an emperor of the ancient Roman type, and in this respect one brief remark of the historian (Vopiscus) has its value that Decius with his son lived and died like an ancient Roman. His reign was short-lived. It began at the end of 249 and at the end of 251 he died during the campaign. But all of it is almost filled with persecution of Christians. Probably, at the end of 249, or, in any case, in the very first days of January 250, an edict was issued against Christians. Its effect on Christians was all the more terrible because it was the first edict that prescribed widespread persecution throughout the Roman Empire against those who did not respect the Roman religion. The persecution of Christians was the responsibility of provincial presidents. The government, therefore, has now decisively taken the path of persecuting the unrecognized religion and has itself taken the initiative of persecution. The text of the edict itself has not survived to us. But from the details of the persecution it can be understood that at that time, first of all, the leaders of the churches were in danger, and then all those who adhered to Christianity were obliged to clearly renounce it and prove their renunciation by sacrificing to the gods. For this purpose, in various cities, the state authorities appointed elected officials, up to 5 people, who were supposed to be in charge of bringing Christians to sacrifice. A certain day was appointed on which all who professed Christianity had to appear and declare whether they remained with their faith or wished to return to the Roman religion. In the first case they were subjected to the full weight of the edict; they were subjected to the same thing if they did not appear before public authority. In the latter case, they had to prove their renunciation decisively. The government was no longer content with just a statement of renunciation of Christianity. All measures were taken to ensure that Christians, at least especially prominent ones, would certainly be brought to the altar to offer sacrifice to the gods. The effect of this measure on Christians was most overwhelming. The long era of peace greatly weakened the moral tension under which the Christians of the first era of persecution lived. Many Christians had become so accustomed to their situation that they did not foresee any danger for themselves. The lull of morality, the almost complete sleep of religion, characterized many Christians of that time. But it should also be added that the Christian Church at that time significantly increased in the composition of its members, because Christianity in a peaceful era was also disposed to accept those who would not have had the courage to join this religion in an era of persecution. Therefore, the persecution of Decius was marked in some churches by a multitude of fallen ones. This is especially known about Carthage and Alexandria. In the first place, the state of the believers is described by Bishop Cyprian, in the second - by Bishop Dionysius. Cyprian says that many fell during this persecution even before the battle. With shameful haste, on the appointed day, many of the Christians hurried to the altar. Some went completely voluntarily and with feigned impudence declared that they had never even been Christians. Others, who held some civil position, were forced to appear before the tribunal by their very rank. Finally, still others were almost forcibly dragged by friends and relatives, forcing them to renounce. They say that one husband forcibly brought his wife to the altar and made a sacrifice for her, although she shouted: “It was not I who did this, but you.” Some even brought their infants and were given drops of sacrificial wine. Many approached the altar with such cowardice that they aroused ridicule among the pagans. Some finally bravely withstood the first blow of persecution and were taken to prison, but could not stand the imprisonment and renounced Christianity. So we see that the government has changed its tactics towards Christians. Previously, it did not want Christians to be seen and did not look for them, but now it began converting Christians to paganism, did not execute them, but forced them to renounce through all kinds of torture. This explains the fact of many falling away. After this persecution, a special classification of the apostates themselves, the so-called fallen ones, appeared. When, after this persecution had subsided, the heads of the churches raised the question of church discipline regarding the fallen, then, depending on the guilt of the fallen, they established such categories of them. Those who renounced Christianity without any coercion, without even suffering any threat, and therefore renounced voluntarily, were found most guilty; less guilty are those who renounced due to human weakness, unable to withstand torture to the end. Then attention was paid to the very form of renunciation. The highest degree of decline was represented by a) thurificati et sacrificati, i.e. those who made sacrifices with their own hands, slaughtered sacrificial animals or burned incense on the altar, b) But some made a compromise between the cruel requirement of the law and their own conscience; they did not make sacrifices themselves, but only received from the official in charge of this matter special types, the so-called libelli, which certified that the bearers of their sacrifices had brought to the Roman gods, and therefore should be free from persecution (lbellatici). c) Finally, the fallen of the third class did even less. They did not correct even these false certificates, but through gifts or influential connections they ensured that their names, in their absence, were included in the lists of those who performed the sacrifice. These were the so-called acta facientes. All of them were subject to varying degrees of ecclesiastical punishment. Currently, we have an accurate idea of ​​those libelli that were issued during the Decian persecution to individuals who renounced Christianity. In Egypt, along with various other documents written on papyrus, copies of these libelli in Greek (from Fayum and Oxyrhynchus) were found. Their form is as follows: “Chosen for the sake of the victims of the village of Alexander Island, from Aurelius Diogenes, son of Satavut, from the village of Alexander Island, 72 years old, scar above the right eyebrow. I have always made sacrifices to the gods, and now in your presence, in accordance with the edict (kata ta prostetagmena), I made a sacrifice and made a libation and tasted the sacrificial meats. Please subscribe. I wish you well. Aurelius Diogenes filed a petition. Aurelius Syrus testifies as a participant [in the sacrifice that Diogenes sacrificed with us. In the first year of the Autocrat Caesar Gaius the Messiah Trajan Decius the pious prosperous Augustus. Epifi 2 [= June 25]." From this we see that the edict was the most strict; measures were taken to prevent the use of other people's libelli: the full name, age, and external signs are indicated here. All libelli were of the same type; In the offices, an incredible number of them were prepared in a known form. The general parts of the form are written in beautiful clerical handwriting, but the bearer’s own handwriting is not so beautiful. In addition to libelli, individuals were issued collective libelli; their form is the same with the corresponding replacement of “I” by “we”. “Chosen for the sake of the victims of the village of Philadelphia, from the Aurelians Syrus and Pasvius his brother, and Demetrius and Sarapiada, our country wives (exwpuleitwn). We have always made sacrifices to the gods,” etc. 8. In Western literature there is an opinion that these libelli were given only to Christians, but it is better to think that all pagans also received them, because, in essence, there were no outward signs by which a Christian could be distinguished from a pagan, and in the mouth of a pagan the statement that he “and always made sacrifices to the gods” sounded completely sincere. This explains the abundance of libelli. Christians, wanting to obtain libelli, sometimes resorted to bribing officials. Historians admit that the persecution of Decius gave the Christian church comparatively more confessors than martyrs. Far from being so widespread, the persecution under Severus may have produced more martyrs than the formally raised and strictly carried out persecution under Decius. This is explained by the fact that the government was now convinced that Christians, as such, should be considered good citizens and that there was no incentive to destroy them. At the same time, the long-term experience of the previous era showed that it is impossible to stop the development of Christianity by passively resisting it, condemning to execution according to Trajan's rescript only those who are caught themselves or are convicted of Christianity. Therefore, having taken the initiative to persecute Christians, the government was not concerned about exterminating Christians as much as possible, but about forcing them to renounce Christianity. They were not shy in the choice of means for this: torture was used on an enormous scale, and some rulers of the regions, in their own cruelty, went beyond the direct instructions of the imperial edict. In any case, in various places, apparently, representatives of the authorities competed with each other in forcing Christians to renounce and not bring the matter to martyrdom. In Rome, however, it was not so: there, on January 20, 250, Bishop Fabian died as a martyr, and his death made such a terrible impression on Christians that his see remained unfilled for more than a year. But in other areas, even those bishops who had the honor of becoming confessors of Christ died in prison. So, for example, Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, after a valiant confession, died after being sent to prison. It was the same with Babyla, Bishop of Antioch. At this time, the famous Origen, who was in Tire, was subjected to torture. But nevertheless, praeses took care not to make a martyr out of him; Therefore, he, already an old man, exhausted by suffering, was sent to prison. But in Rome itself they generally adhered to the same system; for example, the Roman presbyter Celerinus more than once was a confessor of Christ in the presence of the emperor himself, and he was subjected to torture, painful, but not life-threatening. For 19 days he was in prison, stretched out on various instruments of torture; but the matter ended with him being released into the world alive. About another Roman presbyter, Moses, it is known that for 11 months and 11 days, while in prison, he was subjected to various tortures. Due to prolonged torment, this presbyter died. In Rome itself, the persecution probably died down and weakened already at the end of 250, especially when the emperor had to go on campaign. At this time, Celerinus was undoubtedly free, and quite frequent relations began between the clergy of the Roman church and the Carthaginian one. In Carthage they followed the same system of wearing out living Christians with prolonged torture. So, for example, one confessor, Lucian, who was in prison, writes: “By order of the emperor, we were ordered to starve and thirst: 8 days ago we were given for the last time, also after 5 days of perfect fasting, a little bread and a measure of water.” This side of Decius' persecution in Carthage increased the number of those who fell away quite significantly. With the ardent African temperament, some of the Christians behaved defiantly towards the pagans, hoping for a quick execution for confessing the name of Christ, but they could not stand the prolonged torture and renounced. As for Alexandria, this city endured the persecution of Decius, apparently with greater valor, although there were apostasies here too. It must be admitted that Christians in Alexandria were prepared for this, especially by the riots that occurred in the city. Even a year before the announcement of Decius’ edict on the persecution of Christians, some poet and sorcerer appeared in Alexandria, who excited the people, and the mob decided to force Christians to renounce Christianity. First, they were forced to recite some sacred pagan formula, and those who refused were subjected to the most cruel tortures: they were dragged throughout the city, along a road covered with stones, beaten with sticks, and finally covered with stones. At this time, many were forced to flee. Christian houses were plundered; It was dangerous to appear on the streets. There were other frequent political disturbances in Alexandria that Christians also had to endure. Thus, the attention of Christians was already tense to a certain extent. Therefore, when, under the prefect Sabina, the edict of Decius began to be carried out, enough Christians came forward and declared themselves firm confessors. Between them, 4 women especially attract attention, one of whom suffered the most severe torture, and the other 3, on the orders of Sabinus, were executed without any preliminary torture. The 15-year-old boy Dioscorus declared himself just as a firm confessor of Christianity, despite threats and torment he remained faithful to Christianity, but Sabinus himself, taking into account his too young age, left him alive. Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, considered it prudent to hide from the rage of the pagans and, retiring to some unknown place, continued to govern his church. In the same way, however, almost involuntarily, Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, had to hide. He, accurately describing the circumstances of his so-called flight, tells us one precious feature, from which it is clear that at this time only official representatives of the authorities are persecuting Christians. On the contrary, the people, who so recently were at war against Christians under the influence of random excitement, have already made peace, so to speak, with their existence. As a bishop, Dionysius faced the greatest danger. Sabinus, immediately upon receiving the emperor's order, instructed some detective (frumentarius) to find Dionysius. To the surprise, this detective looked for Dionysius everywhere except the place where he could be found: namely, Dionysius remained in his house for three whole days, while they were looking for him along all the roads. Finally, on the fourth day, Dionysius had the opportunity to leave Alexandria. He fled to a suburban village, but was found there with four companions, apparently presbyters, and taken into custody. His fifth companion, a certain Timofey, was away at that time. Appearing afterwards, he noticed to his horror that the bishop and his companions were no longer in the house, that they had been taken into custody and a guard had been assigned to the house. Frightened by this, Timofey rushed to run and on the road came across several villagers who were going to one village for a wedding: according to the custom of that area, they intended to spend the night in a feast. They asked Timothy what was the matter, and he told them everything. These people came to the house where the wedding was taking place and told the guests about this incident. They suddenly, as if on cue, jumped up from their seats and ran towards the city where Dionysius and his companions were in custody. It was already dark night. The bishop and his four companions were guarded by soldiers. The villagers attacked the house where Dionysius was, with such a cry that the soldiers began to run. The villagers burst into the house. The bishop was wearing only a linen tunic and lying on bare boards. Assuming that he was attacked by robbers, he offered them the clothes he had taken off. But they asked him to stand up, and when he, wondering what was the matter, did not dare to follow their request and even asked that his head be cut off before the trial, they picked him up, put him on a donkey and took him to a nearby place. It seems that we must assume that these villagers were not Christians, but pagans, because Dionysius begged them to warn the soldiers and cut off his head - an incredible request for Christians. Thus, this fact shows that without extraneous excitement, the pagan population treated Christians calmly and even sympathetically. After this unexpected rescue from custody, Dionysius retired to some unknown place. Many bishops of Egypt followed his example in the same way and withdrew into the desert, where some of them died unknown deaths. Among the bishops who escaped persecution, the most famous is St. Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, who with his flock, still too young to endure such a cruel test, retired to the deserted Pontic places and remained there until the persecution ended. The persecution of Decius, which gradually subsided during his reign, completely ceased under his successor Gallus (251–253). But in 252 or at the very beginning of 253 there was a new outbreak from the pagans. At this time, the entire Roman Empire was visited by a severe pestilence, which in some places lasted for 15 years. The terrible devastation caused by the epidemic prompted the Roman government to take a more serious look at its religious duties, and the emperor ordered all his subjects to make purifying sacrifices to the god Apollo the savior (Apollo salutaris). Forced to perform these sacrifices, Christians also had to suffer in various places. In Carthage, the rage of the people against Christians was so excited that a cruel cry was heard again: “Cyprianum ad leonem.” However, this was resolved by the fact that the pagans began to treat Christians with greater tolerance. When the devastating epidemic affected Carthage, the pagan society, as completely demoralized, showed itself from the most cruel side. Each selfishly cared only about his own life. The ties of kinship and friendship, previously the closest, were broken. All sick people were thrown out of their houses into the street without pity; those who died remained on the streets without burial, and thus the accumulated pile of decaying corpses threatened, in addition to the epidemic, with a new disaster from air contamination. During this time, Cyprian addressed the believers in Carthage with a sermon in which he reminded them that in this time of temptation they must show themselves worthy of their title, must show how strong the bonds of brotherly love that bind them; It’s not enough that we must turn our compassion to the pagans themselves. Under the influence of Cyprian's convictions, such moral excitement occurred in Carthage that the rich began to donate their property, the poor willingly put their services at the disposal of the church leaders. Thus, in a short time, the streets of Carthage were cleared of infectious corpses, which were buried, and thus the new danger from air contamination passed away of its own accord. This measure had a beneficial effect on the pagans. At the same time as Carthage, the same plague was raging in Alexandria. Here, thanks to the convictions of Dionysius, Christians also showed themselves worthy of their title and also compare favorably with the inhuman cruelty of the pagans, who here too threw the sick and dead into the street. Christians treated the sick as brothers, dressed the dying in funeral clothes and buried them. Many died in the performance of this duty of brotherly love. But there was no shortage of those who showed them the last honor. Here again, Christian heroism had a beneficial effect on the pagans. The persecution of Christians after Decius resumed under the emperor Valerian (253–260). This was the same Valerian who, as elected by the entire Senate, was elevated to the position of censor by Decius, but refused it. As a high character, as a sovereign, he was one of the noblest phenomena of his time, and if Roman historians do not consider him among the “best emperors,” it is only because his end was too unhappy, since in 260, during the Persian campaign, he was captured by the Persian king Sapor and here he was subjected to cruel torture. He died in captivity. In the first years of Valerian's reign, Christians enjoyed such peace and prosperity that Valerian's reign could be considered even better for them than the reign of those emperors whom legends called Christians. But in 257 a change followed, which cannot be explained, despite any efforts. Dionysius of Alexandria attributes this unfavorable change to the influence of his favorite Macrian on Valerian’s mind. But this explanation in its essence turns out to be external, since the motives with which this dignitary influenced Valerian and persuaded him to change his policy towards Christians are unknown. Until now, Christians have enjoyed peace and prosperity. Even in the imperial household there were many Christians among the servants. Now suddenly there was an order to persecute Christians. The persecution was declared everywhere and carried out in the style and direction of the persecution of Decius. The government showed a perfect understanding of the special conditions of existence of Christianity. There were two edicts issued by Valerian. The first edict, in 257, only strictly forbade Christians from gathering for worship and visiting the so-called tombs, burial places (koimhthria). Those who visited places of worship after this ban would face execution. On August 30, 257, the proconsul of Africa Paternus invited Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to his secretarium and announced to him that an imperial decree had been received ordering that those who do not adhere to the Roman state religion return to it and make sacrifices. “What do you say to that?” “I am a Christian and a bishop,” answered Cyprian, “I do not recognize any other gods except the one God.” - “Do you remain with this intention?” - “Yes.” - “So would you like (poteris) to go into exile in the city of Kurubi?” - “I’m leaving.” “The decree concerns not only bishops, but also presbyters. Who is the elder in this city? “You have an excellent law prohibiting denunciations, and I will not report them. Our teaching (disciplina) does not allow them to appear on their own, and this would be displeasing to you too (tuae quoque censurae hoc displiceat). But when the search for them begins, they will be found.” - “I will find them. I also forbid, under threat of death, the holding of prayer meetings (conciliabula) and visiting cimitiria.” “Do what you are ordered,” answered Cyprian. At the same time, Dionysius of Alexandria was invited to the court of the Alexandrian prefect, who invited him to perform Roman ceremonies and then announced that it was forbidden for Christians to gather in the cimitiria or places of public worship, and that this would be watched, and exiled the bishop, on the basis of an imperial edict, to one of the remote areas. But this measure apparently did not have the effect expected by the pagans; therefore, in August 258, a second edict was issued, more cruel. He directly ordered that all heads of churches, bishops, presbyters, and deacons who proved firm in their confession of faith be executed. High-ranking citizens, senators, egregios viros, then equestrians, first of all, for confessing Christ, are deprived of Roman citizenship, their property is taken to the treasury, and if after this they remain firm in the faith, then they are executed. High-ranking matrons for confessing Christ were deprived of their property and exiled to remote places. Those who were in the imperial service (the so-called caesariani) were deprived of their property for confessing Christ, recorded as serfs and exiled to palace estates. During this persecution, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, died as a martyr on September 14, 258, and Fructuosus, Bishop of Tarracona, on January 21, 259. Even earlier, on August 10, 258, Xistus, Bishop of Rome, and his deacon Lawrence suffered. A year later, Cyprian was again summoned to Carthage. Here he no longer found Patern; Galerius Maximus was proconsul. On September 14, Cyprian was presented to him. “Are you Taskiy Cyprian?” - "I". - “Are you the father of the sakrilegs?” - "I". - “The emperors ordered you to make a sacrifice (caeremoniare).” - “I won’t do it (non facio).” - “Think about yourself (consule tibi).” - “Do what you are ordered. In a matter so just there is nothing to think about (fac quod tibi praeceptum est; in re tarn justa nulla est consultatio).” The proconsul formulated the accusation as follows: “You have lived for a long time as a sacrilegus (diu sacrilega mente vixisti). You have shown yourself to be an enemy of the Roman gods and sacred laws. The most august emperors could not persuade you to return to the performance of Roman religious rites. As a warning to those whom you have drawn into your criminal community (conspiratio), you will pay with your blood for breaking the laws.” And then he read the sentence: “Tascium Cyprianum gladio animadverti placet” (Tascium Cyprian should be executed with the sword). “Deo gratias” (thanks be to God), answered St. bishop. Even under Valerian, persecution was combined with torture and prolonged languor in prison. Even at that time, the pagan population treated Christians quite calmly, and since the second edict struck with particular force only the primates, and among them especially prominent ones, ordinary Christians behaved with remarkable freedom in the very era of persecution. So, for example, when Cyprian was finally taken into custody, brought to Carthage only late at night, he could not then appear for trial. All the Carthaginian believers gathered at night to the house in which the bishop was located. Thus the Christian vigilia was formed; but, fearing for the well-being of his flock, the bishop himself asked those gathered to disperse, so that no trouble would happen at the present time. In the same way, the believers gathered in the morning, and did not in the least hide the fact that they belonged to the Church of Cyprian. When the elder bishop was being led to trial, one of the believers suggested that he change his clothes, because the tired bishop was covered in sweat. When Cyprian was finally convicted and taken to the place of execution, the elders were present, to whom he handed over his clothes; the deacon and bishop tied the robe around his arms before he bowed his head under the sword. The acts say that Cyprian instructed the assembled clergy to give 25 gold coins to the executioner who was to execute him. The same calm attitude of the pagan population towards Christianity is reflected in Spain. When Fructuosus, the bishop of Tarracona, with two deacons, was condemned to be burned at the stake by the president Aemilian, he was accompanied with regret by crowds of people, not only believers, but even pagans who loved this bishop for his character. Many believers came out to meet him and offered him aromatic wine to drink; but the bishop refused because it was not yet time to allow fasting (January 21 was Friday). It is curious, however, that the judge himself treated the bishop quite strictly and harshly. His phrase before pronouncing the verdict is typical. To the judge’s question: “Are you a bishop?”, Fructuoso answered: “sum.” And the judge answered him: “fuisti,” which means: “you were a bishop,” that is, you once existed: with these words the judge seemed to pronounce a sentence. But, at least, this president has long come to terms with the fact of the existence of Christianity. Among his household servants were Christians, who told Aemilian's daughter that the holy martyrs, the bishop and the deacons, had been taken to heaven. They talked about this to Emilian himself, and he went to see if he too would see the souls of the holy martyrs ascending to heaven. Obviously, this president, in his punitive measures against Christians, did not consider it necessary to go beyond the limits of the official necessity that weighed on him. From this it is clear that the pagans were indifferent to Christianity. The Numidian martyrs behaved during the persecution with special even heroism, and, apparently desiring martyrdom, they deliberately declared themselves clergy, although they did not have the right to do so. It is said that Jacob wished (affectavit) to confess himself not only as a Christian, but also as a deacon, and Marian declared himself only a reader, which in reality he was (sicuti fuerat). Elsewhere in Africa quite a number of Christians were taken into custody, and one of them, Deacon Flavian, was especially loved by the pagans. Pagans surrounded him and begged him with tears to make a sacrifice to the gods, and then left him to think and live as he pleased. But Flavian did not agree to this. When all the other confessors were condemned and the matter came to Flavian, the pagans shouted that he was telling a lie, that he was a deacon: he was not a deacon. The court paid attention to this cry and sent Flavian back to prison. Two days later, Flavian was brought back to trial. At the trial he was asked why he lied and called himself a deacon. “I’m not lying at all,” Flavian replied. But the crowd shouted again that he was lying. A written statement was even submitted in this regard. Flavian explained that he had no need to lie, since it would not bring any benefit. But the crowd cried out for the judge to torture Flavian; this was desired not out of bloodthirstiness, but in the hope that the torment would force Flavian not to show, at least, that he was a deacon. That way he would stay alive. But the judge, seeing the unyielding firmness of the confessor, did not subject him to torture and condemned him to death. The crowd's compassion was expressed in a peculiar and rude way, but, nevertheless, this fact testifies that the pagans had already come to terms with the existence of Christianity in their midst and were not particularly inclined to persecute Christians now. Of course, when Christians were executed there were always people happy with the torture. But this phenomenon is natural already because the Roman people were brought up on such bloody fun as circus shows, and for the Romans to see some kind of bloodshed like the struggle of man with man or man with animal was one of those peculiar pleasures that they could not deny themselves at the sights of martyrdom. But the initial strength of the pagans’ enmity towards Christians at that time was undoubtedly broken. Edict of Gallienus and the position of Christians before the persecution under Diocletian Valerian's successor was his son Gallian (260–268), who was declared emperor under his father. By his nature, this emperor is a game of chance. He was not a statesman at all, with strong inclinations as an artist and with all the shortcomings characteristic of a fairly ordinary type of artist. Emperor Commodus was a gladiator on the throne, Heliogabalus resembles a jester, and Gallienus's best place would be in Athens. He, indeed, gravitated towards this city with all his sympathies; he considered it a pleasure to be an Athenian citizen, was proud of the fact that he was the “archon” of Athens, and dreamed of counting himself among the host of Athenian Areopagites. He was an excellent speaker, a talented poet, and a versatile artist. In terms of personal character, he was an ennobled Heliogabalus, somewhat dissolute, but not depraved, cheerful, playful, and unusually good-natured. But he was positively unsuited for the throne, and left the worst reputation among Roman historians. His reign was not at all calm; Meanwhile, according to historians, he lived in luxury (luxuria), behaved like an incapable person. He ruled the Roman Empire no better than children rule an imaginary empire when they play king among themselves. In fact, he accepted all kinds of failures that happened during his reign with incredible, purely childish playfulness. They report to him, for example, that Egypt has broken away from his power. “Well,” the emperor answers, “can’t we live without Egyptian flax?” Asia, they say, was attacked by the Scythians, and this province suffered severely from an earthquake. The Emperor replies: “Can’t we do without Asian fabrics?” "Gaul fell from subjection." The emperor just laughed and said: “Is it really the military cloaks of Arras (sagum) that keep the Roman Empire going?” During his reign, various pretenders to the throne constantly appeared in succession and often simultaneously at different ends of the empire, and the emperor, living in Rome with his friends, spoke only about what he had prepared for dinner, what kind of performance was on stage and what circus games would be tomorrow. The people were indignant at him and even insulted him because he left the captivity and death of his father without retribution. In this case, he treated these challenges with amazing indifference and punished only when statements in this sense became impossibly impudent. They say that when he was informed that his father had died in captivity, he said: “I knew that my father was mortal.” It must be admitted that the character of this dissolute emperor was unusually gentle. The jokes he played on the people who attracted his wrath were not the jokes of Heliogabalus at all. They say, for example, that during circus performances a ferocious, huge ox was released. An inexperienced fighter (venator) opposed him, shot him ten times and did not kill him. There were jeers. But suddenly the emperor sends a crown to this fighter. When everyone greeted this act with bewilderment, he ordered an answer through the herald: “Not hitting such an ox so many times is a difficult matter” (taurum totiens non ferire difficile est). This complacent successor of Valerian declared himself in the best possible way in relation to Christians. Therefore, his Christian contemporaries cannot praise his reign enough. Dionysius of Alexandria, who lived under Decius and Valerian, speaks of the assertion of Gallianus’s own power over the Roman Empire: “after a small cloud, which for a short time darkened the clear sky, finally the even brighter light of the previously shining sun shone again.” The Christian bishops who lived under him speak of his reign as “the peace of all churches.” This world of churches rests on his edict, which he issued as soon as the unfortunate outcome of the war with the Persians of his father became known to him. He then issued a decree (ta programmata), by which he suspended the effect of Valerian's edicts against Christians and allowed the heads of the churches to freely carry out their religious activities. The “programs” themselves have not reached us. Only the emperor's rescript, given to Dionysius of Alexandria and other Egyptian bishops, when in 262 Egypt came under the rule of Gallienus, has survived, and even then in a poor Greek translation. “Emperor Caesar Publius Licinius Gallianus, pious prosperous Augustus, Dionysius, Pinna and Demetrius and other bishops. I ordered the benefit of my gift to be carried out throughout the world so that the police would retreat from places of worship. Therefore, by virtue of this rescript, you can use them, so that no one will bother you. So that each of you can take advantage of this right, I made an order about this a long time ago. In this sense, Aurelius Quirinius, who was in charge of the financial department in Egypt, also received an order” (Eus. VII, 13). At the same time, similar decrees were sent to all other bishops, which spoke of the return of kimitiria to Christians. Some scholars, both past and modern (for example, Gorres) interpret the expression of church writers about the “world of churches” and the rescript of Gallienus in the sense that Gallienus gave the Christian religion freedom recognized by law, elevated it to the category of permitted religions and thus significantly changed Roman policy towards Christians, abolishing everything that was directed against Christians of the Roman Empire, starting with Trajan. But a significant number of other scholars do not agree with this interpretation, finding that this rescript gives Christians less than the elevation of their religion to the category of recognized by the state. In fact, in the text of the rescript, as it has hitherto been preserved, there is no statement that Christianity is recognized as a permitted religion, that, for example, everyone is allowed to accept it. It is not even said that all laws that were in force against Christians are now being repealed. Valerian's rescripts directed against Christians are undoubtedly canceled in fact, they are no longer valid. But these rescripts were, so to speak, a particular manifestation of a general principle. Christianity has not been a permitted religion since the days of Trajan, but it has not always been positively persecuted. Valerian established a special form of persecution, which lasted only as long as he reigned. Already by the first edict, Christians were forbidden to hold liturgical meetings and enter the cimitiria. Since supervision was established over the Cimitiria by order of the emperor, it is very likely that these public places, which belonged to Christians, were finally taken into the treasury and, thus, the public property that belonged to Christians was alienated. Gallian in his rescript made it clear that his father’s edict would not apply in this direction, and ordered that the property taken from them be returned to the Christians or, at least, given free entry to these places. But regarding the nature of the Christian religion itself, he did not pronounce any judgment on whether it should be considered permissible or impermissible. Even the word “Christian” does not appear in the rescript. Neither the address nor the text calls Christians Christians; they are considered as one of the religious societies subsumed under the concept of "collegia tenuiorum" (corporations of small people). Gallien did not raise the fatal question of “nomen”; he pretended that he did not understand to which bishops he was addressing his edict, and there were bishops in every college. Consequently, in principle he did not decide anything, and only from the context it is clear that we are talking about Christians. Thus, it is quite possible that the edict of Gallienus repealed only the two previous edicts of his father, but at the same time left in force the organic law of Trajan, which determined the attitude of the Roman state authorities towards Christianity. The Christian religion remained prohibited as before. The government's ambivalent attitude toward Christianity as a corporation is explained by the position of the colleges, that is, various societies and brotherhoods, in the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was generally distrustful of colleges, but the so-called collegia tenuiorum and especially the collegia funeraticia were always, so to speak, exceptions to this general rule. Therefore, even at a time when Christians were persecuted very cruelly, their burial places still enjoyed a certain kind of protection from the laws and only during times of extreme social unrest and popular excitement, when furious cries were heard among the mob: “areae non sint!” (Let the burial places of Christians not be considered ageae), only then were the burial places of Christians subjected to looting and destruction, and sometimes Christian corpses were thrown out. But even the rage of the people could not restrain itself at such a point. A significant change in this regard is represented by the Edict of Valerian, according to which Christians were prohibited from entering the Cimitiria. Gallian returns to Christians their property as a burial society in the person of its legal representatives, bishops (the chairmen in the Greek colleges were called bishops). Gallienus remained on the basis of existing Roman law and repealed only two edicts issued by his father. Christianity, therefore, under Gallienus had not yet received the rights of a permitted religion. But it would be unfair to diminish the significance of Gallienus’ rescript. About one of the best emperors who patronized Christianity, Alexander Severus, it was only noted that he tolerated Christians (christianos passus est) and ignored their existence. Gallien, in his good nature, went further than simply ignoring him. In previous favorable reigns, Christians had to be content only with the fact that the government did not issue any special regulations against them and did not encourage hostile actions by provincial leaders, but could not refer to anything more positive. Now the Christians had received into their hands a rescript from the emperor, written in a tone favorable to them, and this rescript clearly showed in which direction the emperor wanted to stay in relation to the Christians. Thus, without elevating Christianity to the level of a permissible religion, Gallien's rescript still created somewhat more solid ground under the feet of Christians than the one on which they had stood before. And that indeed this rescript did not abolish all the legislation that was in force against Christians, and that Trajan’s law still remained in full force, this is extremely well shown by Eusebius himself, who speaks of the reign of Gallienus as one in which universal peace of the churches was established. Following these words, he directly tells that during this general peace in Caesarea in Palestine, a certain Marinus, who distinguished himself in military service, was beheaded with a sword for his Christian religion, was a man of noble family and had a significant fortune. The case that brought him to death was very original and well characterizes the situation created for Christians by Trajan's rescript. Marin was in military service. In the legion to which he belonged, an officer's position (centurion) turned out to be vacant. Based on his merits, Marin had the right to this place more than other comrades. The judex had already awarded him a promotion to the indicated rank, and Marinus was approaching to receive the appropriate insignia, that is, the famous military belt and a vine branch, when another contender for this place, competing with Marinus, came forward before the tribunal. He immediately declared that according to ancient laws (kata touV palaiouV nomouV) Marin has no right to occupy this rank, because he is a Christian and does not make sacrifices in honor of the emperor, and the vacant place belongs to him - the plaintiff. The judge immediately asked Marin if he was really a Christian? Marin answered: “Yes.” The military court was strict and brief. The judge immediately gave Marin three hours to think, so that after this time he would renounce Christianity or expect the worst for disobedience to state law. Apparently embarrassed by this outcome of the case, Marin walked away from the tribunal. Here he was met by the bishop of Caesarea, Theoteknos, one of the persons who stood under the influence of Origen. The bishop spoke to Marin and quietly brought him to the Christian church. Then, opening Marin’s mantle, he pointed with one hand to the sword he had, and with the other showed him the Gospel and offered him a choice between Christianity and martial law. Marin immediately extended his right hand to the Gospel. Having bestowed his blessing on him, the bishop released him. Three hours have passed. Marinus again appeared before the tribunal, admitted himself to be a Christian and was condemned to be beheaded by the sword. Thus, according to the ancient laws in force, a Christian was sentenced to death for professing Christianity. But at the same time, one of the Roman senators, Asturius, lived in Palestinian Caesarea. He completely openly showed that he was also a Christian: he wrapped precious clothes around the body of the injured martyr and carried him on his shoulders. The whole city knew this; but the accuser did not come forward, and thus he remained spared. Thus, under Gallian himself, the old law was still so cruelly applied against Christians. It is clear that Christianity was not recognized as a permitted religion. But this does not exclude the fact that the position of Christians in the Roman legions, opened by Gallianus’s religious policy, improved significantly. At least two facts dating back to the reign of Diocletian show what tolerance Christians enjoyed at that time. This situation, created by the course of events, must be recognized as characteristic. Christians did not seek any privileges from the Roman government other than freedom of belief. And there was no need for them to seek privileges, since thanks to the circumstances of the time they occupied a privileged position, although this privilege lay precisely in the fact that they represented an unprivileged class. Municipal government was highly developed in the Roman Empire. All citizens were required to perform various types of "munera" or duties. Some positions were classified as “honores,” and whoever received these “honors” was subject to large property costs. The election of Christians to municipal positions would put them face to face with paganism, since other positions had a pagan character, and nothing could be more unpleasant for Christians than to be drawn to a curial position. But fortunately for Christians, both due to belonging to the lower stratum of society and due to property qualifications, they were excluded from municipal positions. This perhaps explains the fact that Cyprian of Carthage, upon converting to Christianity, renounced his property and, at the same time, the privileges associated with the property qualification. But there was a different kind of danger for Christians - being taken into military service, and the position of a Christian soldier was difficult, since he could not completely hide his religion. But here, too, Christians were under a certain auspices. The fact is that among the Romans the military class was honorable and associated with certain benefits. There was no recruitment, in the real sense of the word, and the Roman legions were filled with volunteers who went in a line to enroll and met the conditions of military service. Christians could therefore attend the service only in exceptional cases. However, a pestilence decimated the Roman population for several years, the number of volunteers decreased, and to replenish the legions the Roman government had to resort to conscription. But even in military service one could be a Christian for a long time without revealing one’s faith. Tertullian, in one of his works, says that one Christian warrior was executed because, having received a crown in contrast, he did not do this at one of the parades, when everyone appeared with crowns on their heads, but carried it in his hands, and thereby gave himself away and was executed. This incident gave rise to different opinions; some said that the warrior should have placed the crown on his head and not cause persecution. But now there are other kinds of phenomena. In 295 (during the reign of Diocletian), soldiers were recruited in the African city of Teveste. Among the recruits, one Christian, named Maximilian, attracted attention. This young man was 21 years old and was called up for military service. Proconsul Dion, who was in charge of the recruitment, ordered this Maximilian to be examined. They put him in the pen, but here he declared: “I cannot serve (militare mihi non licet), because I am a Christian.” The proconsul ordered him to be measured; it turned out to be 2 arshins 7 vershoks tall - a perfectly suitable measure for a soldier. Therefore, Dion ordered that a warrior's badge be put on him - a lead necklace. But Maximilian replied that if they put this necklace on him, he would still throw it off: he could not serve. “Why is this?” asked the proconsul. “Because I am a Christian,” was the answer, “I cannot serve (militare non possum).” The proconsul objected: “In the army of our sovereigns, the holy emperors Diocletian and Maximian, there are many Christian soldiers and they even serve in the Life Guards Corps.” But Maximilian insisted that he could not serve because he could not do evil. “Does serving in the military mean doing evil?” – asked the proconsul. “You yourself know better,” replied Maximilian. Then the proconsul ordered him to be executed with a sword for such stubbornness. The martyr said: “Deo gratias,” and was taken to execution. Around 298, undoubtedly before the open persecution of Diocletian, there was such a case. They celebrated the accession to the throne of the emperor, the so-called dies natalis. The local authorities gave an official dinner, in which the centurion Marcellus, who was in active service in Trajan's legion, was to take part. Perhaps a sacrifice or something else was planned before the gala dinner, but at this time the scrupulousness of the Christian conscience awakened in Marcellus and he doubted his right to take part in the dinner. Therefore, in the presence of a whole legion, in front of the Roman banners, he threw off both the belt and the vine branch, which constituted the distinction of a centurion, and loudly declared: “I serve Jesus Christ, the eternal King (Jesu Chresto, regi aeterno milito), from now on I cease to serve and do not want to bow to emperors, your false gods and wooden idols.” Markell was captured. During the official interrogation of the president of the legion, Marcellus repeated his confession and here uttered a few words against paganism, emphasizing the fact that he was a Christian. He was taken into custody. When he was then presented before the proconsul, the latter began interrogating him: “Is everything that is reported about you true? Is it true that in the presence of the army in front of the banner you threw off the signs of your rank? Centurius Marcellus confirmed that it was true. “Is it true that you officially announced this action?” “True,” replied Marcellus. “Is it true that you refuse to serve the emperor?” And Marcellus confirmed this and then added that he was a warrior of Christ and therefore could not serve the emperor. For such an insult to military discipline and lack of a military sense of loyalty, Marcellus was condemned to death by sword. These two facts, which are told by completely reliable so-called proconsular acts, well characterize the state of affairs in which Christians found themselves even in the first years of the reign of Diocletian. From both of these acts it is clear that Christians are not asked about their religion. They themselves declared that they were Christians, and in the name of their religious beliefs they refused to serve. They suffer for their convictions, but with such convictions they would suffer in Russia at the present time, because evasion of military service is unreasonable and criminal. These Christians obviously live in the old ways and do not want to adapt to anything. Previously, Christians were not accepted into military service, and hence they developed a special view of being in military service as doing evil. They consider defending themselves fundamentally unbecoming of a Christian. The statement of these soldiers that they are Christians does not bother the military commanders, but their refusal to serve alone worries them. Proconsul Dion even tries to calm Maximilian's religious conscience by pointing out the fact that there are many Christians in the army. But in both cases, the sentence condemning the martyrs to death does not mention at all that they are being punished as Christians, as sacrileges; and the basis for the sentence is a violation of military discipline or general duty of loyalty towards the emperor. Thus, the position of Christianity by that time was already so strong that belonging to a Christian society is not indicated, even as an aggravating circumstance. Christianity has become so commonplace that Christians are even in the Emperor’s Life Guards, and many of them already felt so much like citizens of an earthly state that, forgetting excessive scrupulousness, they served in the troops, where there were so many of them that Diocletian, before the persecution, specially began to cleanse his army of the Christian element. But, nevertheless, since the law established by Trajan was not repealed, in some cases Christians, in addition to even such clashes with military discipline, could incur the accusation of belonging to a Christian society and could be condemned. Thus, it cannot be denied that there could have been Christian martyrs between 261 and 303, so that the peace of the Christian churches at that time was largely strong, but still it was a relative peace. This peace was almost interrupted at the end of the reign of Emperor Aurelian (270–275). Emperor Aurelian belonged, according to Roman historians, to the category of the best emperors. And indeed, this was a highly noble character. Among the Romans of a time of decline, he was the true Cato of his age. A certain kind of succession is established between the persecutors of Christianity. Emperor Decius speaks very favorably of the senator, already outstanding at that time, Valerian, the future emperor, and Valerian in the same way certifies this Aurelian in the most flattering way. Aurelian held various posts in the military service and here declared himself as a gallant officer with undaunted courage. The soldiers, to distinguish him from the other Aurelian, gave him a nickname: Aurelianus manu ad ferrum - “Aurelian, whose hand is always at the hilt.” During one Sarmatian campaign, this Aurelian killed 48 people with his own hand in one day, and throughout his career - up to 1000 enemies. He raised soldier's discipline to the highest level and guarded the purity of morals among the troops with a severity that Cato could have envied. For the crime in this regard, he ordered one soldier to be torn between two trees that were bent and then loosened; He ordered his own slave to be executed by sword for a similar crime. His table, like his clothes, was the simplest; already being an emperor, he did not allow his wife to wear a tunic made of pure silk on the grounds that he considered it immoral to buy thread worth its weight in gold (then both of these goods were sold al pari [at the same price]). In general, he tried to establish moderation in all strata of society. Despite the fact that, as a private person, he held high positions, he was so poor that when, finally, as a reward for his military valor, they decided to reward him with a consulate, it turned out that he could not take advantage of such a high distinction, because he did not have the means to give the Roman people the circus games obligatory for the consul, and Emperor Valerian ordered that the required amount be issued from the treasury. Thus, what a high character in this case acts as a persecutor of Christians. Of course, in this Cato of the third century, these traits sometimes manifested themselves in a peculiar way and even turned directly into cruelty, however, it is not unknown that this emperor was highly just, a strict guardian of the rule of law. He showed this justice towards Christians in the first years of his reign. In the last months of 269, a second council was held in Antioch against Bishop Paul of Samosata. He was convicted of heresy, declared deposed, and Bishop Domnus was appointed his successor. But with the strong support of the famous Empress Zinovia, the deposed heretic did not at all think of giving up the episcopal title; namely, he did not want to leave the house that belonged to the Antiochian church, which he occupied as a bishop. The position of Christians was highly difficult, because they had to demand protection and patronage from a coercive force - the Roman government, which looked at Christianity as an illicit religion. Aurelian received a request for this when he established his power in the east at the end of 272 - beginning of 273. The emperor decided that the see should belong to a representative of the party on whose side the Italian bishops and, in particular, the Bishop of Rome stand. Thus, Paul of Samosata was expelled from the Antioch church house with the greatest disgrace by the police authorities. It is clear that under Aurelian Christians declared themselves with sufficient openness, and this situation continued throughout his reign. But in the last months of his reign, Aurelian for some reason changed his policy towards Christians and, according to one piece of news (Lactantius), issued a cruenta edicta, a bloody edict, which ordered all Christians to be forced to renounce Christianity and make sacrifices. But according to Eusebius, the matter is presented in a much milder form: Aurelian changed his attitude towards Christians and decided to issue some kind of rescript directed against them, but precisely at the time when he was rushing around with this thought and, so to speak, was already signing the rescript itself. God's judgment seemed to hold him by the elbow, that is, it happened that a conspiracy was hatched against Aurelian and he died at the hands of the scribe who served him. This was in March 275. Aurelian was in Thrace at that time, and, therefore, either the supposed rescript against Christians was not published at all, or, if it was published, it was valid only for a few months of this 275 and had its application only in Thrace. Thus, the general peace actually remained undisturbed under Aurelian. The calm position of Christians established by Gallian continued throughout his reign. Persecution under Diocletian and his co-rulers and the position of Christians under their successors The last battle for Christianity was given by the emperors, who also have to be classified as the best rulers of the Roman Empire. From 284, the Roman Empire came under the rule of Diocletian (284–305), who also gave himself the nickname Jovius, claiming special protection from Jupiter. This was a man who came from the lower social strata, who went through his entire military career, starting from the position of a simple soldier, and thus achieved the imperial crown. Diocletian's mental preparation for a high position could not have been any significant. But, nevertheless, he was a man gifted with high natural common sense, and after Aurelian, who declared himself as the restorer of the limits of the Roman Empire within its former borders (restitutor orbis), Diocletian showed himself as a reformer of the Roman Empire. His reforms affected social strata very deeply, and Constantine, who completed them, was in this case his successor. The character and natural intelligence of Diocletian is evidenced by the fact that he, having sole power over the entire Roman Empire, himself came to the idea that such a vast space, surrounded on all sides by daring enemies, would be extremely difficult for one person to rule. Therefore, in 285 he decided to share his crown with his comrade-in-arms Maximian Herculius, and in 292 he introduced two more persons with less rights to power, namely, leaving behind himself and Maximian the title of Augustus, Diocletian elected two more Caesars, Constantius Chlorus for the west and Maximian Galerius for the east. At the same time, Diocletian believed that when the forces of him and the other Augustus fell into decline, they would abdicate the throne and the Caesars would be the successors of the Augustus. Abdication of power is an extraordinary matter and, in any case, shows Diocletian to be a very honest person. But he was a theorist to the core. This was also his governmental system. In practice, he restored the system of adoption pioneered by Nerva. But they did not take into account the fact that the sovereign himself might not be childless. And so it happened. Diocletian was destined to see with his own eyes the collapse of his government system. The persecution against Christians was open in 303. Under what influences did this revolution take place that Diocletian, who had tolerated Christians for so long, for twenty years, finally decided to launch a cruel persecution against them? Of course, the matter would be clearest if this fact could be understood as the crowning of the whole edifice of reforms undertaken by Diocletian. But there are no sufficiently firm premises for such a judgment. Therefore, modern scientists for the most part abandon this point of view. At the opposite extreme are other scholars who argue that Diocletian cannot be considered a persecutor of Christians, that in this era he was a weak old man, who was ruled by the impudently daring and energetic Galerius, who, so to speak, forced him to take part in the persecution of Christians. In such a view of Diocletian one senses significant idealization. The simplest assumption is that Diocletian could tolerate Christians without considering it necessary, on his own initiative, to take any measures against them. But at the same time, he was nothing more than a Roman statesman who could tolerate Christians and could patronize them, but if it were necessary to take any measures against them, he would not stop even before the cruel. In addition, historians characterize him as a person who knew how to stay away from unpopular measures and, if they were necessary, he knew how to direct his assistants in such a way that they seemed to be the initiators of these measures. Nevertheless, we must look for the reason for the persecution of Christians not so much in the political system of Diocletian, but in the personal circumstances of his life. Struck at the end by her senile infirmity, he could easily submit to the influence of his son-in-law Maximian Galerius, who hated Christians and easily convinced Diocletian that they were the culprits of the fire in the Nicomedia palace. Galerius prompted Diocletian to issue an edict on behalf of all four rulers, so that Christians would thus be persecuted throughout the Roman Empire. Galerius should mainly be considered the moral culprit of the persecution against Christians raised under Diocletian. This was a man who, like Diocletian, came from the lowest strata of society. He was most strongly influenced by his mother, an ardent pagan. By nature he was much more rude and less insightful than Diocletian. However, he had energy and military courage on his side. His position as Caesar did not leave him particularly broad influence over the emperor during the best era of his reign. But a change in the state of affairs occurred that was favorable for Galerius, when he returned from the Persian campaign of 296–297, covered with the glory of brilliant victories. His general authority in the empire rose enormously from this, so that he laid claim to the honor of more than a simple Caesar, and his influence on Diocletian became much more significant. Apparently, in Bithynia this Galerius came under the influence of Hierocles, a pagan philosopher known for his hostility to Christianity. Thus, Galerius, having reached the height of his power as Caesar, began to gradually prepare his strike against the Christians. Christians previously, as such, were not subject to any oppression: it is even directly stated that Christians could serve in the Life Guards or be in palace service. Having reached a powerful position, Galerius begins, apparently, to gradually clear the troops of the Christian element. Cases of this kind are known positively from 302, when the Emperor Diocletian himself, at the insistence of the priests, in one city had to give an order that Christians serving in the army either renounce Christianity and make a sacrifice to the gods, or leave the service. Galerius himself acted in this regard with great determination, so that some of the Christians who were forced to leave the service became martyrs. Of course, the commanders of individual units of the army very soon realized which way the wind was blowing, and, knowing that Galerius represented an influential force, that supreme power would eventually pass to him, they also began to cleanse the units entrusted to them of Christians. However, for the most part, things were done without martyrdom: Christians simply laid down their military signs and left the army. The very large number of Christians imposed a certain caution on those who took such measures for purification. In a favorable era of peace, Christianity spread significantly throughout the empire. Christians began to build vast churches of famous splendor. In the emperor's palace itself there were quite a few servants devoted to Christianity. Apparently, Diocletian's wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria were very supportive of Christianity. Things got to the point where Christians occupied the places of rulers of certain regions, and an order was made so that they would not be required to take part in sacrifices to the gods. The era of peace, however, also made itself felt on the negative side. The moral level of Christians has dropped significantly. Bishops often declared their existence precisely by violent feuds with each other. Therefore, the Christians of this era were, apparently, little prepared for the approaching assault. The case opened on February 23, 303 with the fact that the magnificent Nicomedia Christian church was destroyed, and the next day an edict signed by Diocletian and Galerius was issued, declaring the persecution of Christians. The points of this edict were extremely complex. It was ordered that places of public meetings of Christians, both large churches and small ones (conventicula), be destroyed, and sacred books taken away from Christians. Then all Christians were subjected to, so to speak, civil death. Without distinction of rank or condition, all Christians are declared subject to torture. Those who held positions were declared deprived of these positions. It is said that everyone can accuse Christians, but Christians do not have the right to speak out against anyone as accusers in court and even to turn to a civil court with a request for protection. In particular, it was prescribed that the so-called honestiores, that is, people either of noble birth or holding significant positions, were declared dishonest. People who are insignificant but free, who have been in some kind of service, are brought to imprisonment. Finally, slaves, if they remain firm in Christianity, must renounce the right to freedom. This edict was issued in Nicomedia. Soon after the publication of the first edict in 303, there were two fires in the Nicomedia palace of Diocletian. Galerius managed to convince the emperor that Christians were to blame for the fire. In the same year, two contenders for the imperial crown appeared in Armenia and Syria. Christians here too were suspected of complicity with the conspirators. Thus, their situation became even more unfavorable, and in the same 303 two more edicts followed. The first (the second during the persecution) ordered that all representatives of the Christian clergy, bishops, presbyters, deacons, even readers and exorcists be imprisoned. And this edict was carried out with such zeal that even for criminals there was no room left in the dungeons overcrowded with Christian clergy. Then came the third edict, which ordered that the clergy taken into custody be forced to make sacrifices, and those who fulfilled this requirement be released, and those who are firm in Christianity be forced to perform all kinds of torture. The effect of this edict, however, was temporarily suspended, because in the winter of 303 Emperor Diocletian celebrated his 20th birthday, for which he even arrived in Rome. On the occasion of this joyful event, a manifesto was published, the mercy of which extended to the Christians who were released from prison. However, Galerius knew how to make up for this loss. In 304 Diocletian was sick and dying. Therefore, in fact, the ruler of the east remained the active Caesar, who in 304 issued the last (fourth) edict, the most terrible, which ordered all Christians in all places to be forced to make sacrifices and to achieve this goal with all kinds of torture. The type of trials against Christians that should have taken place can be judged from one example set by Diocletian himself. After the first edict, he began to cleanse his court of suspicious persons, as Christians were considered, and this is how one Christian Peter was tortured in his presence. First they beat him with whips until his bones became visible. Then his wounds were poured with a mixture of salt and vinegar and finally fried over the slowest fire. From this it was possible to judge what techniques the zealous executors of the imperial edict should use. And, indeed, many regional rulers showed the most terrible ingenuity in this case. Some of the tortures were not only terrible, but even simply disgusting. Various rulers have developed their own specialties in this regard. The cruelty and duration of torture and their offensiveness to the moral sense were such that, it seems, only during this persecution did cases of Christian suicide appear. Christians and especially Christian women, not wanting to surrender into the hands of those sent to arrest them, committed suicide with a sword, either threw themselves into the river, or threw themselves from the top floor of the house where they wanted to arrest them. The persecution was particularly severe in the east, in Asia and then in various parts of Egypt. Christians were exterminated in droves. Eusebius reports about the persecution in Thebaid that on one day, during the entire continuation of this persecution, up to 10 Christians died, on another 20 or 30, on others from 60 to 100. He also says that in one Phrygian town the entire population turned out to be Christian, not excluding even the civil and military commanders. Therefore, the sent executors of the imperial edict did not find a more convenient way to put an end to this Christian town than to surround it with flammable material and burn it, so that all the inhabitants, not excluding women and infants, were burned. Some of the regional rulers, in order to achieve their appointment, tried to establish themselves before the emperor with various promises. So, for example, they say about one ruler of Ankyra that he received this city under his control because he expressed confidence that he would force all Christians to leave their religion by torture, and indeed, even before his arrival in Ankyra, he created such fear with his promises that the Christian population for the most part fled, and many died of hunger, hiding in various places and caves. In any case, already the first edict of the emperor made an appeal to the most evil sections of the population of the empire and to the most evil passions. Thieves found safe profit if they began to rob the houses of Christians, and in Ancyra the Christian population, partly remaining in the city, partly fleeing, was subjected to such plunder. Some persons, even more honorable ones, did not hesitate to take advantage of this edict. So, for example, in Caesarea in Cappadocia, one martyr Julitta, a woman with a significant fortune, suffered a lot from the insolence of her neighbor, who seized part of her property. When she turned to the court, this neighbor, instead of making excuses, stated that Julitta did not have the right to conduct the trial, because Christians were prohibited from conducting trials, and she was a Christian and did not make sacrifices to the gods. Yulitta did not renounce Christianity and was executed by death by burning. It should be noted, however, that in some cases the Christians themselves brought disaster upon themselves by a lack of Christian moderation in their pursuit of martyrdom. Some Christians behaved in a positively defiant manner. Eusebius tells about the martyrs of Caesarea that some of them came to the heads of the provinces and declared that they were Christians; one of them wanted to stop the boss himself when he made a sacrifice. And since Caesarea had the misfortune of passing from hand to hand to cruel rulers, these heroes perished in the most exquisite torments. Sometimes it happened that martyrs were subjected to special tortures due to a misunderstanding. Caesarea also provides an example. Several Christians were taken, who, when asked what their names were and where they were from, allowed themselves to use an allegorical expression: they called themselves residents of Jerusalem, meaning heavenly Jerusalem. To our surprise, it turned out that the commander of Palestine, to whose possessions Aelia Capitolina belonged, did not realize that this city was formerly called Jerusalem. He began to ask them where this Jerusalem was. When they said that they were in the east, he considered it necessary to apply the most cruel tortures to them in order to achieve the truth. He imagined that the Christians had actually founded a city hostile to the Roman Empire in which they settled, and he needed to find out the geographical location of the city. A characteristic feature of this persecution was that, although universal according to the edict, it was not the same throughout the empire both in time and in strength. Private orders depended on the personal view of the matter of each ruler. The East suffered more than all other provinces. Here Galerius acted, the moral culprit of the persecution itself, who already under Diocletian extended his influence far beyond the borders of his possessions. And from May 1, 305, Galerius became eastern Augustus and became the complete manager of Christians from the Adriatic Sea to Asia Minor inclusive. He gave Syria, Palestine and Egypt into the power of Caesar even more rude than himself. It was his nephew, the Illyrian shepherd Daya, who was then promoted to colonel and received the title of Caesar under the name Maximina. During his reign, Eastern Christians were especially tormented. In the region of Maximin, the persecution of Christians lasted only the longest (more than 8 years). In the West, the situation for Christians was easier. Maximian, Augustus of Italy, Africa and Spain, was a military man, and perhaps he ordered the execution of Christians who served in the army, because there is news of the execution of Christian soldiers in his half of the empire. There is even a legend that allegedly 6,600 people died as martyrs under him (legio thebaica); but perhaps there is some misunderstanding or exaggeration hidden here, and, in any case, the historical significance of this legend is debatable. But, despite Maximian’s character, persecution in the west was not carried out with such severity as in the east. Even the Roman Bishop Marcellinus, without becoming an apostate, did not even receive the crown of a martyr. There were several cases of execution of martyrs in Spain. However, some Christians here behaved in such a defiant manner that, for example, the Council of Elvira, which took place in 305, had to decide with one rule that those killed in campaigns to destroy pagan temples and idols should not be recognized as martyrs. In Africa, the persecution was carried out most moderately, because here the persecution consisted more in the confiscation of sacred books and the destruction and sealing of Christian churches than in the executions themselves. The Western Caesar Constantius Chlorus in his possessions, Gaul and Britain, tried, as far as possible, to soften the effect of the edict, which, due to his subordinate position, he could not prohibit from being carried out. According to Lactantius, he limited himself to destroying several Christian churches, but spared the Christians themselves. According to Eusebius, he did not even do this. But at least one undoubtedly martyrdom in Britain is known: St. Alban in 304 or 305. From this we must conclude that here, too, some provincial rulers went further than their immediate sovereign, Caesar Constantius. On May 1, 305, Constantius became ruler of the entire west with the title of Augustus. Here the persecution stopped. But the eastern Augustus Galerius was so indelicate that although Constantius himself appointed his son Constantine as Caesar, he chose the North as Caesar for the west. Constantine voluntarily ceded Africa to him. An Illyrian of low birth, a creature of Galerius, Severus wanted to act in the province entrusted to him in the spirit of his patron, but in March 306 he was opposed in Rome, with the title of Augustus, by his rival Maxentius, the son of Maximian. A depraved and cruel man, Maxentius, however, immediately stopped the persecution of Italian Christians. And when in 307 Severus was killed during a campaign and Africa came into the possession of Maxentius, the persecution stopped here too. To fight the self-proclaimed Augustus Maxentius, Galerius appointed Licinium with the title of Augustus on November 11, 307. He was entrusted with the administration of the Pannonian diocese. The persecution was stopped by Licinius here too. Constantine, back in 306, on July 25, the very day of his father’s death, was proclaimed Augustus by his troops, but was recognized by Galerius only in the rank of Caesar. He, of course, followed his father's policy towards Christians. Thus, in the west, strictly speaking, the persecution lasted no more than two years and stopped altogether in the middle of 305. Christians here enjoyed actual freedom, which is proven by two councils that were held at that time, in Spain - in Elvira and in Africa - in Cirta, in Numidia. The Edict on the persecution of Christians was, however, suspended only by administrative rather than legislative action. But in the east at this time the persecution was still in full force, especially in the domains of Maximin. In 306, Maximin confirmed the edict on the general compulsion of Christians to sacrifice, not excluding women and infants. He gave the order that all food supplies should be sprinkled, and from a Christian point of view, desecrated, with sacrificial blood. All persons entering and leaving the baths were subjected to exactly the same purification or desecration. But in 307 or 308 Maximin had to join the policy of the Western sovereigns. However, he found an outcome worthy of his character. He decided to show mercy to Christians, that is, not to kill them, but to gouge out one eye or cut the veins on one leg, and then exile these Christians to various mines. In the domains of Galerius, the persecution died down, at least in 310, when he suffered a serious illness that brought him to the grave. And in 311, Galerius issued the first undoubted edict in favor of Christians, in which he recognized their religion as permissible. Maximin, apparently, felt offended by this edict and tried to limit its application in his domains, but still could not help but carry it out. Thus, the persecution ended here too. But this lull lasted only 6 months, after which Maximin again initiated the persecution of Christians, although not to the same extent and not in the same form as at the very beginning. The actual nature of Diocletian's persecution and the failure of Maximin's attempt The persecution of Diocletian and Galerius is rightly recognized as the most terrible and cruel. Its goal was to destroy the very name of Christianity. “Nomine christianorum delete” - this is the task that the emperors would like to see accomplished. But this was not how this edict was carried out in practice. In any case, one should not exaggerate the cruelty of this final blow to Christians. When Eusebius outlines this persecution, an image emerges of a brutal massacre in which tens and hundreds of Christians died daily. But in his detailed history of the Palestinian martyrs who suffered at Caesarea, Eusebius provides some corrective against this understanding of his own words. It turns out that in Caesarea there were many tortures, even more confessors, but fewer martyrs. There have been three presidents in Palestine, and they were worse people than each other. However, over the course of more than 8 years of persecution, up to 80 people died as martyrs here, and among them, among them, those who perished, by the way, went beyond the limits of Christian prudence in their readiness for martyrdom. The presidents were especially irritated by the boldness of Christians, who completely ignored the existence of the edict and openly visited imprisoned Christians. At that time, very many Christians from Egypt were exiled to the Cilician and Palestinian mines, and whole parties of Christians came to visit them or accompanied them in crowds to the place of exile. Some of these same parties, on their return journey through Palestine, were detained and suffered martyrdom. One party was asked upon entering Caesarea who they were. They answered frankly: they are Christians and they said where they went. If these Christians had been less outspoken, it is very likely that they could have passed safely. On February 16, 12 martyrs died in Caesarea, and here are the details. Pamphilus, a presbyter of Caesarea, was sentenced to death. One of his slaves, a boy, petitioned the president to at least allow him to bury his remains. Thus, he declared his belonging to Christianity himself, and under the most unfavorable circumstances: he was executed after the most severe torture. Then one Christian warrior hastened to inform Pamphilus himself, who was still in prison, about this martyrdom. He was executed too. By evening, 11 Christian corpses already lay at the execution site. But a Christian who has just entered the city hears that martyrs were executed today. He runs to the place of execution, falls to the dead, kisses them; He will be executed too. The talk about the death of Pamphilus and his comrades had not yet ceased when, on March 3, two more Christians came to Caesarea to visit other prisoners and themselves ended in martyrdom. Very interesting are those features of this persecution that outline before us the possibility of a revolution in favor of Christians, apparently so large and so fast. This persecution began from above. The masses, in general, behaved passively. Representatives of the authorities try to incite them against Christians, but here and there there is a glimmer of a desire to spare Christians. Eusebius himself painted such a general picture of the persecution of Christians in various places. Here one is grabbed by the hands and dragged to the altar, sacrificial meat is placed on his right hand and released, as if he had made a sacrifice. The other did not even touch the sacrificial meat, did not even come close to the altar, but those standing near him say that he, too, made a sacrifice, and he silently leaves. The third, finally half-dead, is lifted into the air and thrown almost as if dead, dragged far by his feet, freed from his bonds and recorded among those who performed the sacrifice. This one finally shouts that he is a Christian, that he has not made and will never make sacrifices to the gods, but the soldiers stationed near the altar beat him on the mouth, “they drive him away with violence, although he did not make a sacrifice.” Athanasius the Great says that in Alexandria some pagans preferred to risk both their fortune and freedom, just so as not to betray the Christians who were hiding in their houses. It was not easy to even recruit executive officials. In Africa, in general, the emperor's edict was applied especially mildly. Officials, apparently, are trying to avoid the unpleasant responsibility of executing Christians; they themselves suggest to them the answers that would give them the opportunity to set them free. Instead of apostasy, they want only the slightest lie that is necessary to free them. In 304 they demand holy books from Bishop Felix of Tubiz. “Felix Bishop, give me the books or membranas you have.” “Habeo, sed non do,” he replies. - “Why don’t you give away extra (supervacuas) essays?” - asks another. The answer is the same. Last resort: “Felix, why don’t you give away the holy books? or,” the prefect prompts, “maybe you don’t have them?” Same answer. Felix was executed by sword. Usually, if Christians did not agree to remain silent that they had books, then they only noticed that their testimony was recorded in acts, and they left. In some cases, the pagan authorities behaved with a certain arrogance, especially in large cities. But the details in small towns sufficiently show that Christians and pagans are accustomed to living next to each other, like neighbors who were only accidentally placed in hostility against each other by the imperial edict. When an edict was published in Africa obliging the destruction of places of public meetings of Christians, the local pagan official in Aptungi was not at home. When he returned from his absence, the Christians themselves came to him and asked whether he had received the decree. He replied that he himself had not received it, but had seen how the Christian basilicas in Zama were destroyed, and then this representative of the pagan power and the Christians consult together on how to fulfill this edict in the least burdensome way for either side. Thus, it turned out that the majority of African bishops could save themselves from persecution, even without going so far as to formally betray the Christian sacred books, because the pagan authorities, partly out of ignorance, and partly, perhaps deliberately, kept their eyes closed and mistook for books required by law any kind that were in the homes of Christians or in places of public meetings. Some bishops escaped persecution by issuing heretical or medical writings. When the soldiers came to Secundus of Tigis and demanded a Bible, he said: “I am a Christian bishop, not a traditionalist.” “Do you have any unnecessary books?” - the soldiers ask. But Secundus, according to him, did not give them any books, and, nevertheless, somehow remained alive. Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, found out in advance when they would search the Carthaginian church, and put there only heretical works, which were found instead of the sacred books, the release of which was required. Those who suffered most during this persecution often brought persecution upon themselves and therefore were not approved by the leaders of the Christian Church themselves. There is direct evidence that some Carthaginian Christians confessed their faith themselves, just to end up in prison, hoping for all the amenities that they would enjoy from the generosity of the Christian brethren; some even wanted to get rid of unpaid debts. In general, if we are guided by the sources that came from the pen of the Donatists, it turns out that the more fierce persecutors of Christianity were bishops like Mensurius and his associates like Caecilian. The chief commander of Africa, Proconsul Anulin, did not go beyond the formal implementation of the edict. When Christians appeared before his tribunal, he behaved, like everyone else during such trials, calmly and strictly. But he wanted to be a gentleman, so to speak: he tortured only men, but spared women and children. When the martyr Crispina appeared before his tribunal, along with other Christians, he convinced her to make a sacrifice, threatened her with torture, threatened to shave her head and expose her in that form before the public - but ended up signing the death warrant without carrying out these threats. When the first edict was announced in Africa, several Christians who had gathered for worship in the house of an elder were captured in one city of Abitin. These persons were presented to the proconsul's court. Only men were subjected to torture here; the captured women were not tortured. Along with the others, the presbyter’s young (puer) son, Hilarian, was also taken. Anulin, sparing this child, posed a question to him in a form that saved him from persecution: “You, of course, went there after your father and older brother?” “I am a Christian,” the child answered firmly, “and I came to the meeting voluntarily.” “Here, I will order your hair to be cut, and your nose and ears to be cut off, and I will let you go,” Anulin threatened him and ordered - without any torture - to imprison him along with others. It seems that all these Christians were released after being imprisoned. Having declared himself a gentle judge when the martyrs appeared before his tribunal, Anulin, as soon as the persecution began to weaken, gave even more serious proof of his tolerance towards Christianity. Mensurius, the bishop of Carthage, got rid of the need to hand over the holy books by placing heretical works instead of the holy books in the church that government officials intended to search. The mistake of the pagan authorities was revealed quite quickly: they realized that they had been given the wrong books that should have been taken away. This was stated to the proconsul and it was suggested that the sacred books were in fact probably kept in the bishop's own house. But Anulin did not give permission to carry out the search that the officials wanted, and thus Mensury remained undisturbed. It is not surprising that such a provincial ruler as Anulin could, without much contradiction in his behavior, remain in Africa under Constantine the Great, when imperial decrees on the construction of Christian churches and gifts on this subject were sent through this proconsul Anulin. The features of such a favorable attitude towards pagan Christians are noticeable not only in Alexandria and Africa. From this point of view, the persecution that the more serious opponent Maximin undertook against Christians remains very interesting. Here, there and here, such features manifest themselves, from which it is clear that the pagans were completely indifferent to this government measure. As soon as the government ceased to zealously ensure that Christians were persecuted, a lull began in the situation of the latter. When Maximin decided to issue his famous edict on forcing all Christians to sacrifice and sprinkling food supplies with sacrificial blood, a murmur arose among the pagans, because they found such a measure completely untimely and unnecessary (peritthn thn atopian), recognizing that the blood of Christians had already been shed enough. After the resumption of this measure, the persecution gradually began to subside. A significant number of Egyptian Christians exiled to the Palestinian mines quickly became accustomed to their situation and enjoyed such freedom from their closest overseers that some houses were rebuilt into churches, and since bishops and elders were exiled here, church life continued in the Palestinian mines as before. Only the new governor of the province of Palestine noticed what freedom Christians enjoyed; at his insistence, it was ordered to send Egyptian Christians to various areas. But this state of affairs becomes especially curious when Maximin decided to support the persecution, so to speak, at his own peril. In 311, Emperor Galerius, as I mentioned, issued an edict recognizing Christianity as a permitted religion. This edict was extremely unpleasant for Maximin, but he did not dare to refuse him all action in his own area. He expressed his displeasure only by the fact that, having informed his prefect Sabinus verbally, he did not give the document itself. Sabin, of course, was obliged to notify all the officials and rulers of individual regions subordinate to him about this order regarding Christians. As soon as such an order from the sovereign was received, all the heads of the provinces, with haste, which deeply upset Maximin, released the Christians exiled to the mines to freedom. The return of Christians to their homeland had the full character of a triumphal procession. The Christians of the areas through which they passed came out to meet them with candles and psalmody, and, what is most remarkable, the pagans themselves took part in this congratulation of the Christians on their liberation. This favorable state of affairs lasted only 6 months. After this period, Maximin decided to raise the persecution artificially. He made it known at hand that he would be extremely pleased if the cities themselves turned to him with a request to be cleared of the Christian population. Of course, there were people who did not refuse to follow such an invitation. Little by little, deputations began to appear to Maximin asking that Christians not be allowed to be tolerated in their cities. In pagan schools, fictitious acts of Pilate were in use; the curses against Christians they contained even forced children to learn them by heart in schools. At Damascus the dux attempted to put into circulation a forgotten tale of the immoral conduct of Christians in their sacred assemblies. Tyre, from which, apparently, a particularly solemn deputation came with the request that Maximin desired, received his special favor. He gave a rescript addressed to the Tyrians, which was carved on marble in the city itself. Here, by the way, it says: “So that you know to what extent we are pleased with this desire of yours and how willingly we reward good people on our own initiative without asking, we propose to your piety, as a reward for your God-loving offer, to ask from us generous mercy, whatever you wish. Just take the trouble to wish and receive: your desire will be satisfied without any delay. And may this mercy bestowed on your city testify to your children and grandchildren throughout the ages about your sincere piety and our ability to appreciate and reward all that is good.” A copy of this rescript was sent to all other provinces to show what the representatives of the city authorities should be guided by. Another rescript of Maximin is no less interesting. Here Maximin declares that he holds and has always held the view that Christians should not be persecuted; that they can be useful for the state, that they need to be acted upon only with affection, and in this sense he gave orders to the heads of the provinces, and during his reign none of the eastern ones were either exiled or persecuted. “But after this, when I arrived in Nicomedia last year 311, the citizens of this city came out to meet me with statues of the gods and asked me not to allow such people to live in their hometown. But having learned that a lot of people who adhere to this religion live in this area, I replied that such a request was very pleasant to me, but I only saw that the request was not coming from everyone.” Therefore, Christians should be given freedom of choice in religion. It is quite possible that this is simply a tyrant speaking here, showing off his nobility. But there is nothing incredible in the fact that the demonstration against Christians organized by Maximin turned out to be so miserable that even he himself was ashamed to recognize in it an expression of the general desire of the Nicomedia. The fact that, despite such incendiary acts on the part of the sovereign, there was no arousal of popular rage against Christians at that time, speaks much more eloquently than the most cruel persecution. This detail explains to us what great moral achievements Christianity made in pagan society itself. Christians now no longer dealt with a suspicious and evil crowd, which sees in them an ulcer of the human race and does not go on the offensive only because it does not feel sufficient courage to do so, as was the case in the very first era of the existence of Christianity in the Roman Empire. These are not the people who needed Christian blood, who demand it with cries and who themselves proactively set in motion the apparatus of common law against Christians, and from whom the state was supposed to protect Christians by placing a barrier between them and Christians in the form of a formal legal process. Nor is it a society in which a government on the offensive can recruit sufficiently energetic allies. Christianity as a permitted religion Under Diocletian, the government remained alone in the fight against Christianity. In general, the masses remained passive, and as soon as the administration's energy weakened, the persecution gradually began to subside. Now pagan society counted among its members many who saw in Christians good and useful citizens, good friends who deserved protection even at the expense of self-sacrifice. The bloodshed became unpleasant, and the social position of Christianity was so strengthened that it was enough for the government to withdraw its oppressive hand for the Christians to return to the days of peaceful prosperity that they had enjoyed for 40 years. An edict for Christian freedom in Trajan's time would have been premature. Now he was successful and could not remain a dead letter. The first undoubted edict in favor of Christians was issued on April 30, 311 by Emperor Galerius in his own name and on behalf of Constantine and Licinius. “The government,” it says here, “sought to arrange and streamline everything according to the ancient laws, and could not help but turn its attention to the Christians, who left the sect of their ancestors and reached such madness that they began to follow not the ancient institutions that were established by their first ancestors, according to laws and orders that each one invented according to his own arbitrariness. The results of government measures, however, were unfavorable; some actually returned to ancient institutions; but the majority do not properly honor either the gods or the Christian God (nec christianorum Deum). Therefore, emperors decide to declare their highest mercy to Christians. Let there be Christians again (ut denuo sint christiani), let them form their own meetings, as long as they do not do anything illegal. For this mercy of ours (indulgentiam) they must pray to their God for our well-being, our state and their own.” The language of this edict can be considered exemplary with respect to ambiguity. It can be viewed from a psychological point of view. Galerius, the culprit of the persecution of Christians, is trying to obscure the unpleasant fact for the government that it is now changing the front in relation to Christianity. Regarding the meaning of the previous struggle of the state with Christianity, the edict is expressed extremely dully. Christians retreated from the sect of their ancestors - this is the reason for the persecution. But is this sect identical with the Roman state religion? This is a question that seems to have to be answered in the negative. And in this case, it turns out that Galerius used the fiction that the persecution was caused by the extreme development of sectarianism among Christianity itself. They have shied away from the ancient institutions of their own. Galerius seems to want to show that the state never had anything against this latter, against Christianity in its fundamental principles. Thus, Christianity is a set of ancient religious institutions recognized by law, from which one should not deviate: this religion is recognized as useful for the state on an equal basis with other religions. These features form the ancient concept of religio licita. Christianity is recognized as antiquity, which is natural for a religious society that has existed for 300 years, and then Christianity is recognized, if not as a national one, then at least as a family or family cult, insofar as it is recognized as a known institution of the ancestors of Christians. Thus, over time, Christianity lost its novelty, that unpleasant feature that the Romans did not tolerate in every other cult that did not belong to the permitted ones. The conclusion in the edict also suffers from uncertainty: “ut denuo sint christiani.” Previously, under severe punishment, it was forbidden to become Jews (judaeos fieri) and Christians. There it is fieri, and here it is sint. Thus, the previous order remained in force, and pagans were not allowed to convert to Christianity. This means that this edict gave Christians only the right to exist. It is quite possible that on the basis of this edict they could demand that Christians, while confessing their God, should not convert others to their religion. Such fear was not unfounded. This is clear from the text of the subsequent Edict of Milan by Constantine and Licinius in 312. Imperial edicts were not communicated particularly quickly. They were sent out (presented - perfulgere) first to the prefects, who sent them to the lower commanders. The prefects accompanied these rescripts with their own comments. In the end there were enough of these clarifications. Each acted within the limits of his authority. One might think that the first edict of Galerius caused such a massive movement in favor of Christianity that the government considered it necessary to surround this transition with certain conditions in order to prevent the spread of Christianity. This circumstance makes clear to us the true meaning of the Edict of Milan in 312. Perhaps, based on the text of the edict of Galerius, which allowed Christians to return only to ancient institutions, a strict status quo was established so that those who belonged to Christianity would adhere to it, but so that they would not dare to accept this religion again. The text of this edict has not reached us in its original form. Part of it was preserved only in a rescript addressed to the president of Nicomedia. On this basis, Professor Seeck proves that there was no (Milan) Edict of 312. Nevertheless, the fact remains firm in itself: the emperors issued an edict at Milan. One has to guess about its content from the following edict of Milan in 313. The text of this latter is fully preserved in a rather poor translation by Eusebius (which makes it difficult to understand) and in fragments in the original by Lactantius. And if Lactantius had not had these passages, we would never have understood some expressions. The issue is about the understanding of the word “airesiV”, which in Eusebius usually replaces the Latin word “secta”, but in this place corresponds to the word “conditio” in Lactantius. The vast majority of historians are inclined to believe that in this case the true meaning of the word “airesiV” is given in the word conditio by Lactantius in the sense that this should be understood as the “conditions” that condition the adoption of Christianity. Thus, it turns out that the difference between the edict of 312 and the Edict of Milan of 313 was that in the first there were categorically mentioned various conditions for the adoption of Christianity, which were canceled by the latter edict. The Augustans - Constantine and Licinius in 313, having met in Milan, considered it necessary to grant “Christians and all others complete freedom (liberam potestatem) to follow the religion that anyone can and which he considers best for himself, so that every deity that is on the heavenly throne will be merciful and favorable to them and all our subjects.” It speaks of general freedom of religion for all subjects. But since the question of Christians itself is being resolved, with particular emphasis the emperors more than once return to the idea that from now on Christians will not be subjected to any oppression, that they are given complete freedom (liberam absolutamque facultatem) to follow their faith. All others are given the full and open right to choose between existing religions. In particular, an order was made to return to Christians free of charge the places of liturgical meetings confiscated during the last persecution. If they turn out to be sold into private hands, then the real owners can demand a reward not from Christians, but from the treasury, in the amount of the amount they paid. Thus, the three-hundred-year era of persecution of Christians by pagans ended, ending with glory for the new religion and shame for paganism. Having finally come to the point of a purely religious view that religion should be free, the emperors put an end to the era of long-term persecution of Christians. Christianity was finally recognized as a permitted religion along with all other cults that existed in the Roman Empire. Christians are ensured continued freedom of existence and everyone is allowed an unhindered transition to this religion; therefore, everything that was desirable only for Christians is given. Paganism gave clear evidence of its internal inconsistency, because it opposed the spiritual strength of its enemy with an external force and responded to his conquests with the weapons of state power, taking advantage of the prejudice established among statesmen that the Roman Empire could not exist without Roman paganism. The darkest forces were put forward against Christianity, in the form of the prejudices of the masses and demoralized instincts, and the novelistic aspirations of the best flower of the empire, sovereigns animated by the highest moral and political ideals. Such a heterogeneous composition of opponents of Christianity only enhances the significance of the victory he won. But paganism itself as a religion in the proper sense remained, as it were, outside the ranks during the struggle and only from time to time appeared on the scene in order to incite the fury of the pagan masses against its opponents. Therefore, only the pagan religion suffered from the declaration of Christianity as a permitted religion. Some believe that by the edict of Constantine Christianity was made the state religion. But this contradicts the clear and precise text of the edict. The Edict does not recognize any religion as dominant in the state. The pagans were not deprived of those privileges that made their religion dominant in practice. The Edict granted everyone complete freedom of religion. Constantine himself wanted to remain on neutral ground. But for an individual this is impossible. Constantine had children, and he needed to educate them in one way or another. He gave them a Christian education, and although they were not baptized, they belonged to the Christian church. Thus, the balance was upset. It became clear to everyone that Christianity had become the religion of the sovereign, and for many, the personal views of the emperor could be of great importance. And although Constantine the Great bore the title “pontifex maximus” until his death and after his death was declared a god, however, when he was last in Rome, he sufficiently showed everyone what religion he adheres to. II. Apologies for Christianity and pagan polemics The struggle of the Christian Church against the pagan state ended with glory on the basis of fact. We are dealing, first of all, with one of the means of Christian struggle - the opposition of the legal side to the purely moral side, martyrdom. There were other ways of fighting - fighting with the power of thought in Christian apologies. Apologies are usually divided into judicial and non-judicial. The latter appealed directly to public opinion. The courts actually did not achieve their goal, just as the speeches of lawyers do not achieve their goal when their clients, despite a brilliant defense, are accused. But such speeches can also achieve high goals when it comes to the field of ideas. Therefore, judicial apologies have essentially the same character as non-judicial ones: they were one of the forms of appealing to public opinion. If they were addressed to the emperor, it was only a means of drawing public attention to them, and we should not be embarrassed by the inscriptions of the emperor’s name. Currently, a person who wants to draw public attention to a well-known idea writes an article and publishes it in a newspaper. At that time there were no such means of communicating with cultured minds. A person who wanted to carry out this or that idea wrote logoV (“Word”) and inscribed it with the name of the emperor. For the most part, these logoi (“Words”) were not spoken before the emperor, but they were intended to impress public opinion. And the apologies, although slowly but surely, achieved their goal: they introduced society to Christianity and destroyed the prejudices and prejudices of society against Christians. For its part, paganism opposed Christianity not only to the power of the state, but also to cultural power. This force was expressed in two directions - negative and positive. The negative direction consisted of criticism and refutation of certain works of Christian writers. In addition to this negative work in the pagan world, there was also positive work, expressed in gnosis or, as is commonly expressed, in Gnosticism. Christians had to win the right to be considered not only non-harmful, useful citizens, but also bearers of high ideas. At first, the pagan intelligentsia did not recognize such ideas as Christianity. Tacitus treats Christians very low on this side, sees them as the scum of the human race, and if he stands for human relations, it is only because Nero discovered causeless tyranny towards them. He accuses Christians of hating the human race (odium generis humani). Pliny the Younger (ruler of Bithynia) did not have a better opinion of Christians. Seeing that there is nothing criminal or subject to punishment in Christianity, he did not find anything positive in it, he found only superstition and rudeness, which they defend with such tenacity. Likewise, Marcus Aurelius did not like the enthusiasm with which Christians went to death. He saw this as melodrama without theatrical stage. If educated people and philosophers held such an opinion about Christians, then what can we say about the common people, among whom the most monstrous ideas about them circulated? Rumors spread among the people sometimes found trust among the intelligentsia (Fronto, Caecilius Natalius). It is known in modern literature that an image of a crucifixion of a donkey found on the wall of a donkey with the inscription: “AlexamenoV sebete[ai]qeon” was found in Rome. However, if this was the case even in the second half of the 2nd century in the west, in the Greek east a certain kind of change is already noticeable under the influence of familiarization with Christianity. Simultaneously with Marcus Aurelius, Kels writes against Christians “The True Word” (LogoV alhqhV), which was lost, but restored almost in its entirety according to the polemical work of Origen. Here Kels takes a national point of view and treats Christians as conspirators. And Origen takes the courage to recognize Christians as conspirators, but the highest, the most beneficent, and looks at this conspiracy as an attempt by civilized people to enlighten the barbarians. Kels treats Christians with contemptuous ridicule and does not recognize any mission for them. He finds that every religion should have its own history and considers an attack on such a religion a serious crime. But Christianity, he says, has no prescription, and also no history; therefore, it is only a rebellion that came out of the worst source - Judaism and stands even lower than it, because Judaism is based on nationality, and Christianity inherited only one national trait of the Jews - a tendency to rebellion and disagreement. He defended the legal right to the existence of other religious cults and did not recognize Christianity’s exclusive right to exist. If, he says, Christianity points to miracles, then other religions also talk about miracles (there are tales of barren people who received children in their dreams). Why believe only Christianity? In reality, Christianity gives so little culturally that there is nothing to borrow from it. In a religious sense, it gives incorrect concepts about the incarnation, the resurrection, etc. In a moral sense, it is not impeccable, because it preaches only to sinners, as if the righteous are guilty only because they are not sinners. And high moral principles were proclaimed by Plato and became a common cultural heritage. The entire teaching of Christianity is the fruit of deception. Thus, Kels already shows familiarity with Christian teaching, although he does not draw information about it from a pure source. Around 211, Flavius ​​Philostratus writes a biography of Apollonius of Tyana, the Pythagorean sage, in which many features from the life of Jesus Christ can be found. Philostratus is trying to create a half-novel, half-myth. Apollonius is presented here as a miracle worker, traveling preaching to different countries. Thus, paganism recognized the need for an ideal that would be a concrete expression of what paganism did not actually represent. At the end of the third century, Porphyry, a high and strong mind in his time, conservative in his direction, spoke out against Christianity. He writes “15 words against Christians” (Kata cristianwn logoi ie) and here, in comparison with Kels, represents a step forward. If Kels was forced to become acquainted with Christianity from various works indiscriminately, then Porfiry does it differently. He studies the Holy Scriptures, tries to defeat Christians on their own grounds, looks for imaginary contradictions, wants to destroy the faith of Christians, to prove its inconsistency. Porfiry finds a contradiction in the fact that Christ refuses to go to Easter, but then goes. He reproaches that the sacred books of the Old Testament speak of the establishment of sacrifices for eternal time, but Christians have abolished them. Porfiry especially takes arms against the book of the prophet Daniel, saying that it was written not during the Persian captivity, but during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and in its content represents a lot of falsehoods. It, says Porfiry, was written in order to arouse the fallen spirit of the Jews, which is why it points them to a glorious future, and while the prophet stands on historical ground, he predicts successfully, but after Antiochus Epiphanes his predictions turn out to be incorrect. This view of Christianity is not only negative, but, above all, critical. Porfiry distinguishes two layers between Christian books: in some - the teaching of the Savior, in others - the apostles. The teaching of Christ, according to him, is such that the pagans can agree with him: He himself stood on a national basis, honored the gods and recognized Himself as a beloved man from God, and His followers began to recognize Him as God incarnate. Porfiry wanted to continue the work of Kels from a positive side. This is the purpose of his essay: “On the Philosophy of Oracles” (Peri thV ek logiwn jilosojiaV), where he argues that, based on the sayings of the gods, it is possible to create a theological system in which there will be no contradictions or shortcomings. Thus, paganism spoke out for a compromise with Christianity and began to strive to reorganize it in order to be able to withstand the fight against it. Around 300, Hierocles, the ruler of Bithynia, no longer wrote against Christians, but the peace-loving “Words to Christians” (Logoi jilalhqeiV proV touV cristianouV). This work has not reached us and is preserved only in fragments in some apologetic writings of Christians. He tries to defend paganism against Christianity on its basis and contrasts Apollonius of Tyana with Christ. In his opinion, there is such a similarity between them that the existence of Christianity next to paganism is completely possible. Thus, here the movement of minds has come full circle in relation to Christianity. It began with contempt, denial of Christianity, its validity before reason, then devoted a little more attention to it, and, seeing how difficult it is to dispute this view, ended with its complete recognition, demanding only reform from both paganism and Christianity, and making a distinction between the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and in the person of Hierocles it also refused reform, demanding only union with paganism. But Christianity did not accept such a proposal, it demanded what paganism could not understand, it wanted to be a universal religion. It is clear, therefore, why Hierocles became one of the instigators of the persecution of Christians and even invented sophisticated executions. Thus, paganism, represented by him, recognized it as impossible to fight Christianity on its soil and again resorted to persecution, demanding a compromise, which Christianity did not agree to. III. The struggle of Christianity with pagan thought in the form of gnosis Danger to Christianity from Gnosis Much more dangerous for Christianity was the fight against paganism in another form, when paganism compromised so willingly that it hid the thought of reforming Christianity in its soul. One part of the pagans, succumbing to the then dominant desire to acquire the truth through the selection and merging of elements of different systems, accepted Christianity. This part of pagan society should be considered the most religious. But this entry of pagan syncretists into Christianity was the entry of spies with the intention of rebuilding in their own way and taking over the Christian camp. These pagans thought that they were in no way obliged to abandon their previous theories upon entering Christianity; on the contrary, they thought that with their help Christianity would be correctly interpreted and understood in a high, perfect sense. Their point of view coincided with the point of view of Porfiry. But their distinctive feature is that while Porfiry had a negative attitude towards allegorical interpretations of the Christian Holy Scripture and argued that Christians do not understand the Old Testament, these pagans, on the contrary, hoped that just as paganism through allegory could be interpreted in a more perfect sense, so could Christianity. This is where the movement began, which is known in church history under the name of gnosis and which wanted to interpret Christianity in a philosophical sense. Gnosis appeared no longer as an experience of polemics, but as an experience of reconciliation between paganism and Christianity: intelligent pagans offered Christianity an agreement. It is undeniable that the pagans agreed to recognize Christianity in one form or another; pagan religion and culture did not want to recognize the exclusive right of Christianity to possess the truth. Gnosis asserted the possibility of a compromise between paganism and Christianity, if the latter treats paganism impartially and takes what is best from it. Christianity did not allow such a compromise. The danger of gnosis, as such a half-belief, was undoubtedly great, and only the strangeness of its form does not allow us to notice this danger, which is why it seems strange that the bright minds of Christianity refuted Gnostic theories, which strangle themselves with their absurdity. The danger of gnosis was that it spoke in a language more understandable than Christianity, and the pagan had to give preference to the former. Gnosis competed with Christianity and conquered representatives of pagan thought. The Gnostics looked at Christianity as an untenable teaching precisely because they recognized themselves as competent in solving higher questions, submitting to the authority of philosophers. If Hegel had spoken disdainfully about something, it would have had a greater impact on minds than his philosophy itself. Not everyone understood him, but many bowed before his authority. To know that Hegel had a negative attitude towards one or another opinion meant to know that this opinion was untenable. In the same way, gnosis could produce the same influence without being limited to the sphere of its immediate distribution. 1. Origin and general character of gnosis The heyday of Gnostic systems was the second century of Christianity. The first traces of gnosis go back to the time of the apostles, but the last clear traces of it are lost in the 6th century. Having arisen under unique conditions in history during an era of extraordinary decomposition of religious and philosophical thought, Gnosticism unfolded in an amazing variety of systems, representing the most bizarre combinations of passages of Greek philosophy and mythological forms and religious beliefs of Egyptian and Eastern. This wealth of systems, the diversity in their construction, is absolutely not amenable to truly philosophical analysis. At least, all attempts to classify them are either too general, or arbitrary, or, finally, represent a simple description of Gnostic systems. Even the essential features common to all Gnostic systems are quite difficult to establish, and the Gnostic character of each of these systems is recognized rather practically by experience. [This explains the possibility of such an attempt to change the existing point of view on Gnosticism, which was made, for example, by Ziegler [H. Ziegler, Irenaus der Bishog von Lyon. Berlin 1871]. He, like some others, pursued the idea that the essence of Gnosticism lies not in the material, but in its formal side, in gnosis, in knowledge, in its opposite faith. But this view now seems to have been abandoned. They rightly point out that a higher ecclesiastical gnosis is possible, as pointed out by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 8:1, 1 Cor. 12:8, and if heretical gnosis differs from ecclesiastical gnosis, it is in the fact that he directed all the power of his speculation not to find the truth contained in positive dogma, but to get away from it. Therefore, the essence of Gnosticism must lie in its content.] Syncretism began long ago in the classical world. Previous philosophical experiments were purely national experiments. The meaning of ancient philosophy, of course, is the philosophy of the Greeks; The philosophy of the Romans was simply imitative. The Greeks and Romans represented two cultural peoples who, despite mutual political antagonism, did not deny each other cultural recognition and looked upon other peoples as barbarians. Since the advent of Christianity, there has been a turn in philosophical thought. As purely philosophical thought weakened and lost its charm over minds, the need for other positive supports for knowledge developed more and more; they began to be sought in the religious ideas of their own and the theosophy of the East - the cradle of humanity. They began to assume that the east kept treasures of wisdom. This opened the way for various astrologers, astrologers, fortune tellers, Chaldeans, etc. And since the difference was felt between the best property of one’s own philosophy and the positive religious teaching, since these two factors of human knowledge sometimes contradict each other, there was a need for an artificial agreement between them through their reinterpretation. This syncretism was repeated in the purely religious sphere. Belief in the Greco-Roman gods, which had become too familiar to Greco-Roman humanity and had lost its religious charm, opened up the possibility of spreading purely Eastern cults on the soil of Greek and Italian, which had a charming effect on the minds, attracting interest with their supposed integrity, with their often sharp, original charm. But what is most curious is that the same syncretism was repeated even on Jewish soil. Struck by the hitherto unknown wealth of Greek thought, Jewish philosophy strives to assimilate it, justifying its content from its most sacred books. Philo tried to find in them everything that was best in Greek philosophy. The technique used is the same as that practiced among the Alexandrian philosophers - allegorical interpretation. Probably, in the very first century of Christianity and on purely Jewish soil, an attempt was made to create a whole worldview in which cosmology and theology were derived from one beginning: this is Jewish Kabbalah. Eastern elements predominate here over Greek ones. This is reflected in the very form of construction. Philo philosophizes based on the Greek model; no matter how rich his teaching is in concrete images, the content of abstract thought clearly shines through them. Kabbalists philosophize in the Eastern way: ideas turn into real beings, the genetic development of thought passes into the process of theogony. The main cause of everything that exists is the limitless, the limitless (en sof). The first man (adam kadmon) is the first realization of this limitless. From this concentrated light flow 4 worlds (ulamim, aiuvec): 1) the emanation world as the purest revelation of the content of the first man; then 2) the created world, an outflow from the emanational world, but still completely spiritual; from the second world comes 3) the third world - formed, the world of immaterial, but already individual substances (angels); it, in turn, produces 4) the created world, the world of changeable material entities contained in space. All these four worlds are divided into 10 more spheres (sefirot), and each of these spheres represents some predicate of the Divine, corresponds to one of the 10 names of the Divine, some angelic rank, some part of the world space and some member of the human body, and, finally, one of the 10 commandments. So, for example, the first three spheres that make up the emanation world represent the trinity of divine definitions: crown, mind and wisdom. They represent, so to speak, the essential expression of the divine self-consciousness, signified by the names Ehjeh, Iah, Jehovah. These first three worlds then represent the sky in cosmic space, while the latter represent 7 planets. This same emanation world occupies the head and shoulders in the First Adam and prefigures the first three commandments. The totality of all these spheres is “shekinah,” the most concrete form of manifestation of the Divine, graphically represented either in the form of a human figure or in the form of a tree. At the same time, each of the worlds is realized in its own special Adam, so that from the first Adam three more Adams arise - created Adam, formed Adam and created Adam (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:7; Gen. 1:26). Each Adam, in turn, is divided into 10 spheres with special angel representatives. Thus, syncretism in the world of classical philosophy, which prepared the Neoplatonic system, syncretism in the Greco-Roman religion, which gave rise to its confusion with Eastern cults, Jewish religious philosophy in Alexandria and Kabbalah in Palestine - these are the precedents of Gnosticism at the beginning of the Christian era. The reasons for the appearance of gnosis in the Christian form were the same as those that explain the emergence of syncretism on pagan and Jewish grounds. In the Gnostics we are dealing with people who valued moral and religious interests. These were people with a need for faith, which drew them to the side of the best existing religion, but at the same time they were people of science. Their philosophical development forced them to seek an integral worldview; they are trying to create a system that would embrace all aspects of human knowledge in the sense of philosophical knowledge and answer theological and cosmological questions. That these were people of religion is revealed already in the most external form of gnosis. They took as their model not so much the philosophical schools that existed at that time, but rather the pagan mysteries. In fact, gnosis represents that interesting side, still poorly illuminated, that it was a pagan mystery on Christian soil. The phenomenon of gnosis is a close analogy with what we observe in the later systems of Greek philosophy: through contemplation, even ecstasy, they thought it was more likely to achieve the highest goals of knowledge than through thinking (gnosis in the proper sense). Calling themselves Gnostics, representatives of knowledge, the Gnostics understood, however, by this knowledge it was not abstract thinking or scientific thinking. They thought to achieve this knowledge through religious means. It is not the thinking itself, not the personal effort of a person that makes him a Gnostic, but his entry into a well-known Gnostic society, the entrance to which is open only through various religious rites. In all, as far as they are known, Gnostic sects, there were special initiation rites, partly reminiscent of the Christian sacraments. For example, baptism and anointing were sometimes used in peculiar forms, reminiscent of some pagan cults. For some Gnostics, the acceptance of newcomers into their society was accomplished by introducing them into the illuminated, decorated bridal chamber, which serves as a symbol of the resolution of the gloomy state of the given world in the harmony that gnosis offered. The very form of the structure of the Gnostic sects, their government, is also reminiscent of the various religious societies that existed among the Greeks and Romans, the so-called qiasoi. In the same way, the forms in which Gnosis offered its teachings resemble those that existed among the pagans. It is known that when a person turns to the mysterious, then the very mystery of the means by which he seeks to achieve his goal seems to be most appropriate to the given task. This, perhaps, explains the fact that in all cases when a person thought of turning to an unknown natural or supernatural force, he used spell formulas that were incomprehensible in some details, so that some conspiracies retained the stamp of deep antiquity, dating back to the time of the Assyrian-Babylonian civilization. In every conspiracy there are some incomprehensible names. For example, even in the land of ancient wisdom, Egypt, Jewish names used great credit in conspiracies: there are Egyptian purely pagan lamentations, in which, along with Egyptian words, Hebrew names are found: Hosts, Adonai. The practice of the Gnostics in this respect is extremely similar to that of the magicians: and among the Gnostics Syriac phrases and various Hebrew words enjoy great credit. Many, for example, Hebrew words are used here to designate a certain situation or a certain discovery of spiritual life in dogmatic systems of gnosis. Particularly sacred prayers in some Gnostic sects were composed in Syriac, and this, according to the leaders of Gnosis, made a particularly strong impression on those present; words completely incomprehensible seemed to open a particularly convenient door into the mysterious region of the unknown. But next to religious needs stood philosophical needs. Wanting to solve the problems presented by life, both theological and partly cosmological Gnostics introduced Christian views into the circle of their apparatus. But at the same time, the positive content of the Christian religion seemed narrow to them. It gave answers to religious and moral questions, but left aside purely cosmological questions, or, at least, solved them not in the formula in which the science of that era was accustomed to solving them. To answer the primordial and essential question of philosophy, how the finite came from the infinite, the material world from the spiritual, Christianity proposed the idea of ​​free creation from nothing and, moreover, in a form so simple that here religion, both in content and in presentation, diverged from the philosophical formulation of this question, since philosophy did not reconcile well with the idea of ​​creation, which seemed to it a logical contradiction, because nothing comes from nothing. The position of the philosophizing minds of the 1st and 2nd centuries. in such matters, despite the sharp difference in form, in essence, it was the same as the contemporary position of the so-called intermediate theology, which wants to establish complete correspondence between a purely theological view and natural science or any other scientific hypotheses. Both Gnostics and modern mediocre theologians do not want to sacrifice either religious faith or philosophical and scientific conviction. It was necessary, therefore, to agree between them at all costs. This could be achieved in two ways: either in the most positive doctrine, in the books of the Holy Scripture, to find that philosophical and scientific meaning that became dear to the Gnostics or intermediate theologians, or, as a last resort, to look for a principle that would free a person from the authority of the letter of the Holy Scripture. It is known how modern mediocre theologians act in this case. If the six-day creation seems unscientific from a geological point of view, then we can try to understand the word jom not in the literal sense, and then we will be dealing with entire geological periods that can be stretched into millions of years. In certain places one can notice favorable phrases that apparently correspond to Darwin’s theory of the origin of species (Gen. 1:20,24), but in the end there is always the possibility of recognizing that the Holy Scripture in this case speaks only in human language, that Moses wrote not for astronomers and geologists, but for the Jews of his time. Then the first chapter of Genesis will not have such significance that because of it the struggle with modern natural science becomes inevitable. The method of intermediate theologians is as strictly scientific as possible. In all their techniques, in philology, criticism and exegesis, they want to stand on the level of modern science. But the Gnostics did exactly the same thing for their time. They, firstly, in the Holy Scripture received from Christians, at least in its individual parts, tried to find their favorite teaching, as Philo had done before, and managed to do this through allegorical interpretation. For that time, this exegetical technique seemed as strictly scientific as now, for example, comparison of texts and philological research. This technique was already applied to the case by pagan Alexandrian scientists even before Philo. It is widely used in the interpretations of Origen, who sometimes went to such lengths of explanation that it would now seem naive to believe in their plausibility. All this shows that in that era allegorical interpretation enjoyed full credit. Under the cover of the letter they looked for a mysterious and, apparently, deeper meaning than the literal meaning, not embarrassed by the fact that this mysterious meaning is offered only fragmentarily, so that the supposed sublime ideas are presented in such a way that it is impossible to find an internal connection between them. But the allegorical interpretation of the Holy Scriptures alone was still too insufficient to build all the Gnostic systems. Therefore, the Gnostics, in contrast to the letter of the Holy Scriptures of Christians, use their apocryphal monuments as sources of a higher order, which contained the secret esoteric, and therefore the purest, teaching of the apostles and other persons. Almost every Gnostic school was based on similar apocrypha. So, for example, the Basilidians derived their teaching from St. Matthias and Glaucia, Hermeneuta Petrov, Valentinians from Theodad, a disciple of the ap. Paul, the Ophites referred to the teachings of James, the brother of the Lord, Justin - to the book of Baruch, the Cainites - to the Gospel of Judah. As for the form in which the Gnostics clothed their views, it, of course, is more closely related to Eastern theosophical myths than to Greek philosophy. For us, recognizing gnosis as a philosophy seems strange. It was not distributed in the form of philosophical treatises. Rather, these were experiments in poetic exposition, not philosophical systems, but religious epics. But every time knows its exclusive forms of presentation. In our time, the experiments in presenting natural scientific truths in the works of Jules-Verne seem very interesting, but centuries will pass and this form of presentation will seem too funny for that time. And gnosis has its justification in the past. The Gnostics spoke not in abstract concepts, but in images, living pictures. Their theology was resolved into theogony, and cosmology into cosmogony. In this respect they were slaves to their largely Eastern origins and their special relationship to the sacred text. The allegorist, who recognizes in historical figures with the most vivid concrete features the expression of ideas completely foreign to a given historical situation, naturally becomes accustomed to imagery. And not only Philo or Plato, but even Plotinus, one of the most abstract Greek thinkers, often abandon the language of philosophical concepts and resort to explaining their positions through images and symbols. Consequently, from this side, the form of Gnostic constructions could not seem at that time to be as unscientific as it would seem in our time. And for people of Eastern origin, this theology through the religious epic seemed no more strange than in our days the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures in the selected technical expressions of Hegelian philosophy. This extreme of the philosophically abstract in our time serves as the best explanation and justification for that extreme of the poetic and concrete that the Gnostic systems represent. In our time, they think that the concrete content of Holy Scripture can best be explained by resolving it into the most abstract propositions obtained by philosophy. The Gnostics in this case made, so to speak, a double allegorical image. Through allegories from the Holy Scriptures, they received certain abstract propositions, and then again expressed these abstract propositions in allegories, in pictures, in images. Thus, from one mysterious riddle they received another riddle in a processed form, gave a solution to the first, but again offered it in a mysterious form. Their teaching had the effect that at first it was only partly understandable, but incomprehensible in its deep foundation and became understandable gradually, as the Gnostics improved and ascended from strength to strength in the Gnostic sectarian understanding. Thus, the Gnostics wanted to be not only people of science, but people who deeply comprehended religious truth. There was nothing anti-church in this formal principle, distinguishing false gnosis from true gnosis. Only the very content of the science with which they dealt deviated them from the generally accepted rule of faith, directing their path of speculation not to find the Christian truth as it is proposed in the church, but to move away from it. In the historical circumstances of that time, in the fact that that science did not develop on Christian soil, lies the reason that Gnosticism turned out to be precisely the reaction of heterogeneous forms of paganism, both classical and eastern, in which purely Christian elements disappeared. In general, in order to understand with a clear example what gnosis represented in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, it is useful to compare it with the phenomenon of a time closer to us, namely Freemasonry. It was also a mysterious cult, to which only initiates had access. In fact, to the outside eye, Freemasonry seems a strange phenomenon. I understand how ironic the expression is: “to work in this or that lodge,” because this is pure idleness. But Freemasonry is a force capable of dominating minds even now: obviously, such surrogates are necessary for humanity. Gnosis represented not only a definite system, but a system in a semi-mystical form. It was not enough to adhere to certain opinions that Gnosis preached; one also had to be initiated into one or another circle, introduced into it. Like the Freemasons, the Gnostics recruited adherents from among different religious beliefs. Some of the Gnostics, belonging to some school, did not interrupt their connection with the Christian Church, as do the Masons. Entry into society was accomplished with the same ceremonies, often strange, but always incomprehensible; the rites bore the same imprint, taken from an eastern origin, as that of the Masons. And the Gnostics, like the Freemasons, had in use mysterious, extremely strange, mysterious names of biblical or Jewish origin. And the Gnostics, like the Freemasons, emerged from legends that supposedly date back to the times of the deepest antiquity and explain everything in the best possible way. The fascination with gnosis for that time seemed, from the point of view of people quite seriously and scientifically educated, no less incomprehensible as in the recent or present day the fascination of some scientifically educated people with various forms of Freemasonry - joining lodges, conscientiously performing various ceremonies. In any case, gnosis, like Freemasonry, offered to those who accepted it not only a well-known philosophical theological view, but also a morality developed in a rather high tone. What was the content of gnosis as a philosophical system? Assessing gnosis from the ethical side, we can define it as a philosophy of pessimism. He appeared as a result of everyday experience. With the religious revolution in the pagan world that Christianity brought about, there was a revolution in politics: the Greeks were enslaved and deprived of freedom, the Roman Empire had in its bosom a people at a high level of development, but humiliated and insulted. In essence, the intelligent and developed Greek did not know what to put his hands to. He could work on the municipal structure of his city to bring it to a high degree of civil structure, and indeed there were speakers among the Greeks who argued that one could be content with this. But a vague question arose in the listeners of such speakers: if the fatherland is such that it is worth living for, and not worth dying for, then is it worth living for? This means that there was already sufficient ground for pessimism. On the other hand, the notorious Roman Republic fell and was replaced by a monarchy. This change in the way of government was greeted with joy by the people, since the previous republic represented a high development of selfishness, because the aristocratic trend in its worst manifestation - oligarchy - prevailed in it. The aristocrats who headed the administration, although they were patricians, were not patres. These were egoistic optimates - people of deep pockets; on the one hand, they could sparkle with luxury, on the other - suffocate. If anyone mourned the republic, then in this cry the voices of aristocrats were heard, from whom their high position was taken away. Therefore, people joyfully welcomed the monarchy, which seemed to them a blessing. But, surprisingly, this joy was fleeting. The cultural world has become obsolete; signs of physical degeneration and senile decrepitude appeared. In fact, the beginning of gnosis falls on one of the sad eras in world history. Classical philosophical thought is already without faith in its own strength; religion - without faith in its content; political life, to which so much had been sacrificed and which still apparently flourished - and that with ominous omens. Rome has just accomplished its historical mission; he ruled the world (“tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento”). He assimilated the fruits of Hellenic culture; the provinces were supposed to prosper: the benefits of Roman citizenship, for which streams of blood had previously flowed, were now provided by the emperors to one and all. However, all this did not give rise to a joyful feeling of achieving the goal. Ominous clouds appear here and here. The Pax Romana has already been broken. Barbarians invade the Roman Empire from everywhere. On the Roman throne, along with state talents, complete mediocrity and gloomy despotism alternate. The glorious ancient institutions are gradually turning into dead forms. Economic turmoil weighs heavily on the welfare of politically equal provinces. Public morality is in such decline that it is finally beginning to create poets of indignation; satire and epigram flourish, drowning out the poetry of ideals with their growth. And when, finally, under the influence of purely physical and historical conditions, wild orgies give way to calm, it is not a sign of moral strength, but proof of a moral state of impotence. Even the glorious era of the Antonines, considered the best era of the Roman Empire, apparently does not produce a change in the general gloomy mood of the thinkers of that time, because everywhere there are gloomy signs that the best half of life has already been lived, that what lies ahead is not color and strength, but only decay. The gaze of thinkers turns to the past, and not to the future. All hopes are placed on the return of what has been lived: “the kingdom of Saturn is returning” (redeunt Satumia regna). It is indisputable that in the philosophy of this time of decline the movement of humanity declared itself to such an extent that Christianity could in this case look at philosophy as its natural assistant, since moral dignity was felt here in sufficient breadth. Among philosophers, people began to appear who lived like ascetics, and in general morality became higher than in the previous era. But this fact speaks of physical decline: there was no strength for revelry, there was nothing to burn and seethe in the human body. Such eras do not usually give rise to a healthy worldview. This depressed state of health is also reflected in Gnostic systems. The eternal question about the origin of the finite from the infinite is posed everywhere here in the mournful formula: “poqen to kakon”, where does this evil come from, of which there is so much in this world? And what an individual might say in one of his darkest moments: “Who called me out of insignificance as a hostile power?” sets the tone for the whole philosophical movement of this era. Thus, thanks to the pessimistic leaven, gnosis appeared as an attempt to resolve the question of the origin of the world under the philosophical question of the origin of evil in the world. The appearance of Christianity with its bright idea of ​​redemption and reconciliation makes a strong impression on minds that were fruitlessly tormented by the question of evil: a new and unexpected outcome is revealed. But even this new idea does not produce a change in the basic tone, because it turns out to be misunderstood in all its deep content. These thinkers are already too accustomed to generally accepted philosophical concepts, to the established view of the present and the past. Moreover, if Christianity appeared as the gospel of a new life, then this idea was actually weakened. We had to reckon with a false view: Christ’s words about the second coming were taken literally, that it would be soon. And Christians lived in a tense state, did not count on the long existence of the world and expected the opening of the kingdom of Christ. In this respect, gnosis came into agreement with Christianity. The world greeted Christianity not as the dawn of a new, vigorous life, not as a herald of an imminent outcome, not with Simeonov’s, but purely senile: “Now you let go.” What is specifically Christian becomes discolored and assimilates into the pile of accumulated experience. This minor motif is reflected in Gnostic sects everywhere, in dogmatics, in ethics, in the most diverse forms: in dualism, and in pantheism - with “nirvana” in the future, and in severe asceticism, and in the orgies of debauchery of the “perfect sons of the kingdom.” All of them vary one idea of ​​universal restoration, and not one of them can indicate to the world a definite goal: its existence is either misfortune, or a mistake, or an incomprehensible accident. This minor tone seems to be the main difference between gnosis and the Christian worldview, which represents healthy optimism, and even from the positive religions of Judaism and classical paganism, which in any case were not pessimistic. In any case, it seems that pessimism is a more stable characteristic of the content of the dogmatic provisions of gnosis than any other material detail in these systems. 2. Scheme of the content of Gnostic systems and their classification It has long been customary to represent the dogmatic framework of all Gnostic systems in such a scheme. The absolute spiritual principle is opposed to the material, either as a passive boundary of being, as non-existence (mh on Plato), or as an active evil force (the dualism of the Persian religion). In both cases, the direct origin of the material world from God is unthinkable, and to eliminate contact between them, a special creative principle, the demiurge, is introduced. With weak dualism, the demiurge appears to be a weak spiritual being who falls into matter and becomes a creator out of necessity; with strong dualism, the demiurge creates the world either in spite of God, like an indignant angel, or like a slave captured by matter during its offensive movement on the world of spirits and enslaved by it. With weak dualism, in order to eliminate the contact between God and matter, God emanatively develops from himself a whole spiritual world of “eons”, the totality of which constitutes the “plyroma”. With strong dualism, the opposition of principles is maintained more strictly, and the concept of emanation, which weakens it, disappears, so that the supreme principles - good and evil - confront each other directly and directly. The goal of the world process everywhere is the liberation of the spirit from the bonds of matter. The central (turning) point of world history is Christ, the Redeemer, who enlightens the pneumatic elements of the world with knowledge of their own nature and the heavenly world. Redemption everywhere has a purely theoretical character and consists of teaching. But with weak dualism, Christ does not act against the demiurge; with strong dualism, he acts contrary to the demiurge. In both categories, the actual unity of spirit and matter is unthinkable. But weak dualism is limited to the fact that it denies only hypostatic unity: Christ lives and acts in another, real person; strong dualism, on the contrary, rejects such a contact of opposite principles: it turns into docetism, and the human nature of Christ resolves into a phantom, into a pure ghost. In connection with the dualistic basis of the Gnostics, their anthropology and moral teaching stand. They divided people a) into spiritual (pneumatikoi), determined to perfection by their very nature, b) into spiritual (yucikoi), capable of achieving relative perfection only through exploits, and c) into material (ulikoi), doomed by nature to sacrifice to sensual desires. The main task of human moral life is the liberation of the spirit from the bonds of matter, the mortification of the flesh. And since the last goal is equally achieved in two ways: by cruel restriction and excess in satisfying natural instincts, Gnosticism led to both the strictest asceticism and unbridled libertinism. One part of the Gnostics, with the concept of matter as a distinctive evil force, preferred an ascetic lifestyle in order to avoid any contact with it; the other, on the contrary, with the concept of matter, as mh on, as non-existent, indefinite and, therefore, indifferent, easily tolerated the mortification of the flesh through its abuse. This is the usual idea of ​​the content of gnosis. It cannot be denied consistency and clarity, often reaching the point of transparency, so that if it corresponded to reality, then gnosis itself, as a doctrine, should be considered philosophically explained. But compiled even before the opening of the Philosophumena, when the system of Basilides seemed very similar to the system of Valentinus, this scheme contains features abstracted only from the most significant systems - Valentinus, Saturninus and Marcion, completely ignoring minor ramifications. There are a lot of exceptions (the pantheistic monism of Basilides and the Naassenes; the demiurge with the wrong meaning in Valentinus; the “Alexandrian” systems of Basilides, the Naassenes, Justin, without aeons; the tripartite division of humanity is not in all systems). Thus, the presented scheme is more important as a program for the study of Gnosticism and elucidation of its characteristics, than as an actual description of gnosis. If it is difficult to define in concrete terms the particular content of Gnostic teachings, then it is even more difficult to classify them. From this point of view, Gnostic systems represent a real kaleidoscope. The same system is so modified under various external influences that it sometimes has to be classified into two different classes. There is nothing to be said about the solid and consistent development of branches emerging from one root. The components of even one and the same doctrine lead it to two opposite sides (for example, the weak dualism of the Ophites at the starting point and enmity as the strongest element of world rule; the weak dualism of Justin and the victory of the flesh over the spirit in the pre-Christian period; the eons of the later Basilidians and the living warring ulh (“matter”) and Docetism). In view of this state of Gnostic teachings, every somewhat original church historian usually gives his own division. These experiments of division, unsuccessful if we keep in mind their own goal, are, however, interesting in the sense that they highlight various aspects in the content of the systems they affect and thereby somewhat clarify their meaning. All these divisions, however, can be reduced to two main types, representatives of which are two luminaries of modern church history, Gieseler and Neander. Gieseler divides gnosis in terms of its origin, which of course influences its content. He distinguishes between a) Alexandrian Gnostics, starting from Plato’s concept of matter as mh on, and b) Syrian Gnostics, whose dualism already echoes Parsism. This division completely coincides with the description of gnosis that is usually given in textbooks. But, not to mention the fact that this classification too smoothes out the individual differences of individual Alexandrian systems, it is forced to place the system of Bardesan (Bar-Daisan), who was adjacent to Valentinus, in the group of Syrian Gnostics. Neander comes from a different point of view. He draws attention not so much to the origin of gnosis in ethnographic terms, but to the meaning of Gnostic systems as a philosophy of religion. The decisive question here is: what relation does the Gnostic system have to existing religions, especially Judaism? Therefore, Neander distinguishes two classes of Gnostics: a) adjacent to Judaism, recognizing the positive value of this religion (Basilides and Valentinus), and b) Gnostics, polemicizing against Judaism, or a) with a bias towards paganism (Ophites, Carpocrates, Antinomians), or (3) with the aim of understanding Christianity in its pure content (Saturninus, Tatian, Marcion). In essence, Baur also adheres to Neander’s point of view. He also divides the Gnostics a) into those who saw in Christianity only the completion of Judaism and paganism (Valentinus, Ophites, Saturninus, Bardesanes, Basilides), recognizing the predominance of the pagan element in their systems, then b) those who opposed Christianity to Judaism and paganism (Marcion), and c) those who identified Christianity with the true content of paganism (Clementine). But both famous historians, starting from the same principle, disagree with each other in their understanding of ophitism. Neander considers the Ophites to be anti-Judaists, and Baur places them in the same group as Basilides and Valentinus. In view of this state of affairs, Schaff's eclectic system of division is of interest for its veracity. He admits that Gnostic systems can be divided into three categories: 1) from the ethnographic side, 2) from the religious-dogmatic side and 3) from the ethical side. By nationality, the Gnostics are divided into a) Egyptian or Alexandrian and b) Syrian (close to Gieseler). If we then look at gnosis as a religious-dogmatic system, then we get a) pagan Gnosticism, b) Judaizing and c) Christian (Neandero-Baurian point of view). Finally, from an ethical point of view, there is gnosis a) with a predominance of theosophy, such are the predominantly speculative systems of Basilides and Valentinus, then b) with a predominance of ascetic-practical interests and, finally, c) with libertinistic-antinomian tendencies. Finally, Herzog (1876) admits that no consistent classification can be made. Gergenröter gives a presentation intermediate between chronological and logical. One of the reasons that classifications of gnosis fail is the actual state of the data about this phenomenon. Those persons who left us this information engaged in gnosis in order to polemicize against it, and not in order to study it. And they usually pay attention to that side of gnosis that seemed most harmful in a given system. It is natural, therefore, that their systems of gnosis are presented in a one-sided light, and the complete theoretical or moral teaching of individual Gnostic sects remains unknown. 3. The most important Gnostic systems Without dwelling on the heresies dating back to the apostolic age, let us consider the most important systems, known in more or less detail. According to historical prescription, the first place is occupied by the Ophites, the brotherhood of the serpent (Schlangenbruder). The fact that they are not named after any founder speaks volumes about their antiquity. Probably, these systems existed even before Christianity and with its advent they only slightly changed their form. And this direction lasted longer than others: back in 530, Justinian issued laws against the Ophites. As the name itself shows, this is a gnosis in which the serpent appears. This group includes: the Naassenes and Justin, known only from the “Philosophumena” of Hippolytus (V, 6–11, V, 23–28), the Peraticians (Hippolytus V, 12–18, Theodorit I, 17), the Ophites (Irenaeus I, 30–31, Epiphanius 37, Theodorit), the Sethians (Hippolytus V, 19–22, Epiphanius 39, in Irenaeus and Theodoret - simply Ophites), Cainites (Irenaeus I, 31, Epiphanius 38), Pistis Sophia; Without particularly strong grounds, Hergenreter includes Monoim, the Archontics, and the Barbeliots here. The Cainites are already shaking hands with the Carpocrats. That the Naassen sect should be considered the most ancient is evidenced by the simplicity of their system and their very name. Naasshnoi - from the Hebrew "serpent", which indicates their Eastern origin (cf. also their reference to the tradition coming from Jacob, the brother of the Lord, through Mariamne). They place Adam at the head of all things (remember the Kabbalistic adam kadmon). The elements: spiritual, soulful and material, constitute simply the attributes of the being of this first man. Obviously, there can be no talk of dualism here: such a beginning leads to Kabbalistic pantheism. These attributes were called by the Naassenes in the Hebrew words Is. 28:10,13: kaulakau, Saulasai, Zehsar, (Zehrsam)). Here the words are repeated twice: “commandment upon commandment, rule upon rule, here a little and there a little” (sav la sav, kav la kav, ze ir sam, ze ir sam). This is obviously new evidence of the Eastern origin of the heresy. The serpent appears here as agaqodaimwn (“good demon”), who discovered and taught people self-knowledge, which must be resolved by perfect knowledge, that is, the knowledge of First Adam. All the attributes of the first man descend on the Redeemer, Jesus the son of Mary, and in Him their unity is repeated again. In this last feature one can, of course, see simply a reproduction of the general Christian idea of ​​God-manhood, but perhaps there is already a parallel to Kabbalistic reasoning that the soul of Adam was incarnated again in David and the Messiah, because A D M = Adam David Messiah. Very close to this primary form of Ophiticism is the teaching of the Peratiks, who called themselves that because they had the knowledge of how to overcome corruption perasai thn jqoran. They recognized trias, a trinity of principles, to agaqon agennhton (unborn good), to agaqon autogeneV (self-generated good) kai to gennhton (and begotten). Accordingly, everything in the world bears the stamp of trinity. The seeds of all possible forces from the world of the unborn and self-born descend into the lower third world. The third world must be destroyed; the purpose of redemption is to save that which comes from the higher two worlds. The perata presented world history as a commentary on the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. To get rid of the slavery of matter (body) - Egypt, you need to go through the Red Sea - Kronos - a symbol of death, where all ulikoi, all unbelieving Egyptians perish; then you need to go through the Sinai desert - a temporary world in which fiery destructive snakes and pagan gods (stars) reign; but here the true serpent comes to the rescue, kaqolikoV ojiV, Christ the Redeemer, the Son of the Father, the Word, who by origin belongs to the unborn world. He mediates between the higher worlds and the lower, like a serpent, now ascending to the Father, now bowing to the earthly and imprinting it with divine powers. The teaching of the Sethians is presented differently by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. His Ophite character in the presentation of the first appears quite clearly (the triple principle: jwV (“light”), pneuma akeraion (“unalloyed spirit”), skotoV (“darkness”); the struggle between them, sundromh (“clash”): the firstborn of darkness, the wind - a serpent, rushes violently over the waters, the perfect god - NouV (“mind”) falls into the bosom of darkness and is clothed matter; the task is to save him from the corruptible body, in order for LogoV (“the word”) to deceive the serpent of darkness and save the divine sparks, NouV, but the meaning of Seth is completely obscured. On the contrary, according to Epiphanius, the serpent does not play any role; the cosmogony is constructed completely differently, but it is clear why the sectarians called themselves Sethites. goes between transcendental principles: the heavenly power, the Mother of all women, and the angels who created the world, and from them Cain - coikoV ("early"), Abel - yucikoV ("spiritual"). Because of them, some kind of discord arose between the angels, which ended with Cain killing Abel. Then the Mother of all women (pantwn mhthr kai qhleia) sent Eve from above a spark (spinqhr) of her power: Seth, the chosen race (kaqaron genoV ekloghV), was born. But the descendants of Seth soon began to mingle with the family of Cain. Then the Mother decided to destroy all the non-chosen in the waves of the flood. But here, too, the angels deceived her: along with seven pure creatures - the Sethites - they brought into the ark one unclean one - Ham: 8 souls were saved; The Cainites survived the flood. To bring triumph to the chosen race, Christ miraculously appears in the world, not through birth, that is, Seth himself, sent from above by the Mother." The antipodes of the Sethites are the Cainites (kaianoi). They more strictly pursued the dualism of the supreme forces: the angels-creators are not a subordinate force, but a coordinated principle. There are two forces: the highest eon - Sophia, iscurotera dunamiV (“stronger force”), and ustera asqenestera dunamiV (“secondary, weaker force”), the creator of this entire world. There are also many angels, uncertain either in meaning or origin. Whether it was angels or these two forces that created Adam and Eve. From the marriage of Eve with both powers, Cain and Abel are born. Cain is the son of Sophia, Abel is the son of Istera. The descendant of a higher power killed Abel and triumphed over a lower power. The successors of this highest idea were, then, the Sodomites, Esau, Korah, Dathan and Abiron, and, finally, Judas the traitor, the only true apostle of Sophia. The Cainites set themselves the honor and glory of continuing in history the work of such glorious figures with whom Istera could not do anything: they also wanted to fight the principle that created the world with means worthy of Sodom and Gomorrah. This sect is in direct contact with the Carpocrats. Justin's heretical system is a rather complex and skillfully motivated novel, remarkable in that paganism with its mythology plays a more significant role here than in other systems. World history is determined by the mutual relationship of three principles. These are Jehova (AgaqoV, “Good”, o KurioV, “Lord”) and Elohim (o Pathr, “Father”) - masculine and spiritual principles, Esei, Israhl or Ilh, half-woman-half-serpent, psychic-material principle. In Greek mythology - heaven and earth, oupanoV and gh - a marriage couple, and here too - Elweim and Israhl. They are born with 24 angels, 12 aggeloi patrikoi, “fatherly angels” (Micahl, Amhn, Barouc, Gabrihl, etc.) and 12 aggeloi metrikoi, “motherly angels” (Babel, Acamwq, NaaV, BeliaV, Satan, etc.). They all represent paradise, its rivers and trees, Barouc - the tree of life, NaaV - the tree of knowledge. This family creates heaven and earth and man: from the upper part of Eden his body was created, Elohim breathed into him the spirit, pneuma, Israhl - the soul, yuch. But Elohim's pneumatic nature unconsciously draws him upward; surrounded by his angels, he goes to inspect the heaven he has created. Here the extraordinary light of the dwelling of the Good One, more excellent than that created by him, amazes him. “Open the gates of righteousness for me,” says Elohim, “I will enter them and glorify the Lord, but until now I thought that I was the Lord.” “Behold, the gates of the Lord,” a voice reaches him from the light, “the righteous will enter into them” (Ps. 118:19,20). Elohim enters and sees those blessings that no eye has seen and no ear has heard (1 Cor. 2:9). And the Lord said to Elohim: “Sit at My right hand” (Ps. 109:1). After some hesitation - he felt sorry for Elohim and Eden and especially for his spirit in man - he finally agreed. Abandoned, Israhl tries in vain with all the charms of her beauty to regain Elohim. Then, in a rage, she decides to take out the pneumatic element in man and orders her angels in every possible way, through the medium of the soul, to torment the spirit in people. Elohim sees everything and sends Baruch to help. He gives a commandment to people: to eat from all the trees of paradise, but not from the tree of knowledge, to trust the suggestions of all angels (mhtrikoi) - but never to Naas, this representative of evil in its purest element. But Naas had such an effect on the sensual nature of Adam and Eve that they both fell due to the perverted use of instincts. In vain does Baruch raise up Moses and the prophets: Naash triumphs over them too. From the Jews, Elohim turns to the pagan world - and raises up a great prophet, Hercules. He leads a heroic struggle against the 12 angels of Iel; he also broke Naas, this many-headed hydra, but could not defeat the first angel, Babel-Aphrodite: Omphale also prevailed over Hercules. Leda, Ganymede, and Danae are also woven into this story. Thus the whole world was corrupted: Judaism was destroyed by malice, paganism by sensuality. Finally, Baruch appears to 12-year-old Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, while he was tending his father's sheep. He warns Jesus against the wiles of Nahash, and He remained faithful to him and always declared only what Baruch told Him. Naas could not defeat Him and brought Him to crucifixion. But He said: “Woman, here is your son,” that is, Eden, here is your body and soul, and, entrusting his spirit to the Father, he ascended to the good Jehovah, showing the way of salvation to all people. Following his example, the spirit of every person can be freed; the means for this are given in the book of Baruch. The powerful influence of the Valentinian system also affected Ophiteism and complicated this system with a new element - the suffering Sophia. We encounter this form in the writings of Irenaeus and Epiphanius [whose representatives of this form are simply called ophites]. The spiritual principle BuqoV, “depth” (Valentinians) or o prwtoV antrwpoV, “first man” (ophites) has been opposed from eternity by the material principle; the emanation of the first is the masculine (arrenoqhlu) beginning h Sigh), “silence”, h Ennoia, “thought” (valent.), or o deuteroV antrwpoV “second man”, o uioV anqrwpou, “son of man”; from this second comes the feminine (qhlu) principle - to Pneuma agion, “Holy Spirit” (h anw sojia, “mountain wisdom”, h mhthr twn zwntwn, “mother of the living”). From the union of the first principles with the third, the heavenly Christ and the lower Sophia-Achamoth or ProuneikoV are born. The abyss of light that poured out on the Holy Spirit was too much for the formation of one being, and too little for two. The feminine nature of the highest Sophia could not bear such fullness of light; a drop of it shimmers, and this drop is the imperfect female being Achamoth. While the Mother of the living ascends with the heavenly Christ into the abyss of light Vithos and there, together with the first principles, forms the ekklhsian agian (“holy church”), Prunikos is cast into the dark ocean of chaos and, rushing over its waters, sets them in motion. The enchanting power of her light nature attracts matter to her, the chaotic elements clothe Achamoth with a body so crude that her consciousness begins to fade, and she falls into the depths of the underworld. She forgets about the higher world, considers herself to be the supreme principle, and in this state of alienation from God she gives birth to a son, Jalda bahut, Ialdabawq, “a creature of chaos,” a creature as limited as he is evil, but cunning and powerful. This one rebels against his mother and wants to create his own world in order to be the only Lord in it. Meanwhile, Achamoth comes to his senses, and, supported by the radiance of light from above, little by little frees himself from his heavy body and rises above the world of chaos and on the border of the pleroma, in the middle place, between the kingdom of light and the seven world spaces created by Yaldabaoth, leads a blissful life. From here she directs the existence of the world to a higher goal, destroying the plans of Yaldabaoth. This latter successively developed from himself the aeons (Iao, from him the great Sabaoth, from this Adoneus, Eloeus, Oreus and Astapheus) - stellar spirits, and at their head begins to control the hebdomad - the 7 planets. But the spirit of discord that animated him was also inherited by his eons: they want to emancipate themselves from him and are rebelling against him. With a gloomy face distorted with rage, Yaldabaoth looked down, his image was reflected in the dark abyss of matter, and from this a new son of Yaldabaoth was born, serpentine (ojiomorjoV), but wise NouV. This marked the beginning of Satan's kingdom. To distract his aeons from their efforts, Jaldabaoth invites them to start creating the visible world. They create man, but what comes out is an insignificant creature that can only crawl like a worm. Since the goal of the world should be to deprive Jaldabaoth of his pneumatic principle, Achamoth instills in his son the idea of ​​ensouling a person with his breath. Jaldabaoth breathed life into him, but along with it he transferred to him all the spiritual elements of his nature. Man has become higher than his creator: having learned about the heavenly world, he wants to free himself from the power of Yaldabaoth and ascend to the pleroma. Yaldabaoth bound him with a wife and a commandment, but in the form of a serpent, either Achamoth herself, or through Ophiomorphos, convinced Adam and Eve to break the commandment. So the fall became the beginning of salvation and the snakes - a symbol of helping Achamoth. The enraged Jaldabaoth cursed both the man and his son (Ophiomorphos), and expelled the former from paradise, so that he was exposed to all the temptations of the satanic kingdom. The human race split into pagans who completely fell under the power of Ophiomorphos, Jews who remained faithful to Jaldabaoth, and a few pneumatics who did not bow to this god of the Jews and, with the support of Achamoth, retained their independence. Jaldabaoth and his aeons raise up prophets among their people, but Achamoth knows how to proclaim pneumatic ideas through their lips. Finally, Yaldabaoth sends his Messiah; then, at the request of Achamoth, the Holy Spirit sends the heavenly Christ. He appears to Achamoth, as her groom, passes through all planetary spaces, and, assimilating with each of the eons, imperceptibly extracts pneumatic elements from them. At baptism, the heavenly Christ and Achamoth descend upon the Messiah Yaldabaoth. Having learned about this, in order to destroy Christ, Yaldabaoth nails Him to the cross. But it is useless: Christ and Achamoth return to the pleroma, which now consists of 5 divine persons. From here they send the power that awakens the dead Jesus. He is resurrected in a new celestial body and after an 18-month stay on earth, he ascends to heaven and sits invisible at the right hand of Yaldabaoth, mediating the return of the pneumatic element in humanity to the plyroma. The clan of Yaldabaoth, deprived of a spiritual basis, will share the fate of the material world; when the last light element in humanity returns to the plyroma, this world will perish. The Ophites introduced a real snake cult; they kept it in a box, sometimes released it onto a table covered with bread, and then used the bread touched by the snake for the Eucharist. Morally they are libertineists. The dark content of the Gnostic book P i s t i V S o j i a represents the story of Jesus who came to earth after the ascension to his disciples about the fall and repentance of PistiV Sojia. Occupying her place in the thirteenth aeon, she one day raised her gaze upward and saw the shining veil of the treasure of light. She wants to rise to its height, but cannot, and, carried away by this desire, instead of performing the mystery of the 13th aeon, she sings a hymn to the place of height. Offended by this exaltation, Faith-Wisdom was hated by both the highest 12 aeons and the great representative of the 13th, tridunamoV auqadhV. He produces many material emanations, probolai ulikai, and sends a ghostly light into the depths of chaos. Deceived by this brilliant mirage, considering it to be the radiance of the veil, Faith-Wisdom is cast into the depths of matter and experiences all the torments of material formations. But she does not lose faith in the power and help of the light and turns to it with 12 repentant hymns, which reconcile the 12 offended higher eons with her, and she is restored to her topoV dikaiosunhV (“place of righteousness”), in her rightful place in the 13th eon. From this essay one can see in what heterogeneous forms the teaching of the Ophites was imprinted, how differently even fundamental philosophical questions are resolved in it. The teaching of the Naassenes begins with pure pantheism: both spirit and matter are attributes of the same beginning, Adam. This pantheism is replaced by a soft form of dualism, or better, by the idea of ​​three independent principles, in the systems of the Peratics and Justin, in both of them the lower principle is doomed to destruction, but the supreme principles, however, come into relationship with it without any forced necessity - in the system of the Peratics, not only the second, but even the first itself. In the teaching of the Ophites themselves, dualism is more decisively stated: only the first man and chaos are given as beginnings, and the first already develops emanatically into trinity, quaternity and pentary. Finally, in the Sethite system, according to Hippolytus, dualism takes the form of Parsism: the material principle - darkness, diametrically opposed to light, is a living and active principle; from itself it gives birth to the primordial of darkness, the wind; it wages an offensive war against higher principles, and they unsuccessfully strive to protect their borders. The Perfect God, NouV, is resolutely a prisoner of war of darkness. – Aeons are not clearly spoken of in many Ophite systems; in Justin they are the product not of a supreme principle, but of an independent second. – We know nothing about the demiurge of the Naassenes; Among the Peratics, if we consider Christ to be the demiurge, he is also the redeemer. In Justin, Elohim is an accidental educator of the world. The Ophites, starting with a dualism weaker than the Sethites, end in the spirit of Parsism; despite the fact that Achamoth enters matter as a result of natural development in the divine principle itself, despite the fact that matter is inactive at the beginning, the formation of the world is the result of a continuous chain of such malice, mutual discord, that it is hardly possible to carry out the idea of ​​the evil principle more fully. In general, the worldview of the Ophites is darker the more definite it is. Among the Naassenes we know nothing about the purpose and meaning of the universe. Among the Peratics, the world arises accidentally and aimlessly: the supreme principles enter into unity with the lower, doomed to destruction by nature itself, and support this unity through Christ. Justin, it seems, wanted to say that the spiritual principle is not so opposed to the soul-material that no interaction between them is possible. This, at least, is the idea of ​​Elohim's marriage to Israel. Only when the spirit reaches the height of its development, is set by the highest ideals, only then does the difference between these two natures become clear, but from that very moment the union between them, which was previously aimless, becomes positively harmful, the spirit falls under the tyranny of soul and flesh, and every struggle between them ends in the victory of the latter. World history is a series of triumphs of the flesh and fruitless, painful efforts of the spirit, although it develops all its energy in the struggle. Even redemption itself does not introduce into these relations a new moment that justifies them: the spirit, even in the person of Jesus, achieves only its autonomy, but not triumph over the lower nature, as a result of which it would turn into an obedient instrument for the implementation of its goals. “Israel! take what belongs to you,” this is the last testament of the dying Messiah. With Christianity, world history moves only faster towards its denouement, not towards the vital development of the world, but towards the destruction of its aimless and random existence. In essence, the dogma of the Ophites is no higher than this. True, as a result of world history, the divine principle apparently triumphs: the quaternity of the Holy Church develops into a quintuple; Achamoth, who has fallen into matter, becomes higher than the level to which nature placed her, but the life of the world is almost the cruelty of the divine principle. Human life in itself has no value here. Of course, his appearance in the world is a moment of utmost importance: Yaldabaoth breathes into him all the pneumatic elements and is thereby reduced to a simple generation of elemental forces. Let us assume that this legend has the meaning that a person must assimilate the divine idea hidden in the circulation of elemental forces, that outside this idea the latter have no meaning and, once a person has comprehended it, the goal of the external world has been achieved. But what was ideal in the “son of chaos”, he immediately and completely transferred to man, and the historical life of the latter is only a regression, since with the development of the human race the intensity of the divine, which was so concentrated in the first earthly man, weakens. In its subsequent history, humanity did not at all increase the amount of spirituality in itself; what was scattered in the aeons of Jaldabaoth was extracted from them only by the heavenly Christ. And redeemed humanity has no further goal before itself than to return to the point at which man stood in the first moment after his creation and break his union with the world. History, therefore, only makes a false circle; the world has nothing in front of it except a negative goal - self-destruction, to the detriment or in the interests of the power that created it, which, in the latter case, itself has a negative attitude towards it. You can see from here how convenient it is to classify the Ophites into some category from the point of view of Neander-Baur. Their ideas about the mutual relationship of the three historical religions are either unclear, or are such that they give the same right to both an affirmative and a negative answer. For example, Justin recognized the importance of both Judaism and paganism, since during this period humanity was under the care of Baruch, who raised up his prophets. Justin had a negative attitude towards Judaism and paganism, because this was the period when Baruch, in his struggle with Naas, suffered defeat after defeat, so that Christianity appeared as a result of the complete failure of previous measures for the liberation of mankind. The Ophites also recognized the significance of the pre-Christian period, since at that time Prunikos carried out her plans and through the prophets of Yaldabaoth proclaimed pneumatic truths, and denied its meaning, since all this happened contrary to the wishes of the demiurge himself. The gnosis of the Ophites, in all likelihood, developed on Jewish soil; at least all their heterogeneous systems bear the stamp of Jewish origin. Truly Alexandrian gnosis is represented in the systems of Basilides and Valentinus. Basilides was originally from Syria, but lived and acted in Egypt. He taught in Alexandria under Hadrian, around 125–130. He wrote quite a lot (24 books of Exhghtika, “Interpretations”). Basilides' son Isidore wrote several books on moral teaching (Hqika). The Gnosis of Basilides is known in two editions. One idea about Basilidianism - the previous one, is drawn mainly from the information that Irenaeus preserved for us. Another idea, relatively new, became possible only since the opening of Hippolytus's Philosophumena. There is still a debate among scientists about which of these presentations to give preference to. It seems to me that the system set forth by Hippolytus in the Philosophumenae is the original system of Basilides. The reasons for this will partly become clear during further presentation. According to the presentation of Hippolytus’ “Philosophumena” (VII, 20–27), the gnosis of Basilides had the following form. The beginning of all things is a being so transcendental that no human idea of ​​it is possible. Neither simple, nor complex, neither substance, nor non-substantial, neither man, nor angel, and not even God, it is almost nothing. This is what Basilides calls o ouk wn qeoV, “non-existent God.” From this beginning everything comes, but not through emanation - Basilides is afraid and resolutely avoids this form of representation - but through creation by word. There is no better way to describe God’s relationship to the world than with the words: “he wanted to create.” However, this was not a definite desire and a definite thought. He wanted without thought, without feeling, without wanting, unintentionally, dispassionately, without any desire (anohtwV, anaisqhtwV, aboulwV, aproairetwV, apaqwV, anepiqumhtwV kosmon hqelhse poihsai). The non-existent God created a non-existent world from non-existent, giving real existence to only one seed. Basilides' way of expressing this point is that pantheism and free creation are woven into one insoluble knot. The world is not a thing. However, it contains the elements of all real existence; hence the world is called panspermia, the aggregate of seeds. These seeds must develop, just as an insignificant mustard seed develops into a many-branched and many-leaved tree. The world was given in this panspermia just as in the colorless mass of a peacock's egg all the rich variety of colored feathers of this bird was given. Thus, the world begins as panspermia, a “primary mixing” of elements (sugcusiV arcikh). Its further history consists of its separation (julokrinhsiV) from this heap of a certain being. This panspermia also contains a “tripartite sonship,” uiothV trimerhV, consubstantial with the non-existent itself. Driven by natural attraction, the first sonship instantly stands out from the mass and - (wsei pteron he nohma - with the speed of the flight of thought ascends to the non-existent after the first sonship and, in imitation of it, the second sonship, “imitative sonship”, uiothV mimhtikh, wants to ascend there. But it is incapable of such a flight. Therefore, from elements heterogeneous to it in the pile of the world, it creates the winged being, the “Holy Spirit,” Pneuma to agion, and with its help ascends beyond the world. But as it is not consubstantial with the non-existent, the Spirit itself cannot enter the sphere of the non-existent, where the sonship ascended by it ascends, and it remains as a “firmament,” sterewma, as the border between the world and the supermundane, pneuma meqopion, imbued with the fragrance of sonship. The further development of the world is only the implementation of what is laid down as a plan in panspermia. First of all, from the lower elements of this panspermia stands out the “Grand Duke,” o megaV arcwn, arrhtwn arrhtoteroV, dunatwn dunatwteoV, more unspeakable than the unspeakable itself, and more powerful than the mighty itself, beautiful, wise and mighty. He ascends, but only to the firmament. His non-pneumatic nature cannot penetrate into the realm of non-existence. He does not even suspect the existence of the transcendental and considers himself the supreme god. He gives birth to a son, even taller, even more beautiful and wise than himself. He places this son on his right side, and together they create the etheric world, the Ogdoad, the octagon. Then a second archon stands out, also “unspeakable,” but inferior to the first. In the same way, he gives birth to a son better than himself and also, together with him, creates the septenary, the hebdomad, that is, the world of seven planets. – The rest of panspermia does not have its own archon, but is governed only by the laws immanent to it. However, this mass contains the true salt of the world, the purpose of its existence: it is in it that lies the “third sonship”, represented by spiritual people. It “suffers”, awaits its release, and with it all creation will have compassion (Rom. 8:19–22). During the pre-Law period, people live in a state of sin and ignorance, figuratively represented by the great archon of the Ogdoad. The period under the law, represented by the archon of the hebdoad, begins with the revelation of God (Ex. 6:3): “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” says the archon of the hebdoad, “but I did not reveal the name of God (i.e., the innermost archon of the ogdoad) to them.” Under the influence of the archon of the hebdomad, people receive a number of prophetic revelations. Finally, there comes a certain time for the gospel. The idea of ​​sonship ascended to the non-existent is communicated to the son of the great archon through the medium of “St. Spirit,” but not physically, but dynamically: not that the super-worldly sonship descended again to the earth, but just as fire ignites brimstone even at a distant distance, so the Gospel, this secret, hidden from centuries and from generations, which no one understood from the princes of this age (1 Cor. 2:8; Col. 1:26), suddenly illuminates the mind of the son of the great archon, and he comprehends who is not existing, what sonship is, what the Holy Spirit is, how everything happened and what the restoration consists of (apokatastasiV). He communicated this gospel to his father. He was horrified when he learned that he mistakenly considered himself the supreme God, that there was a God who did not exist above him. But this fear was the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7; Ps.24:7): the archon confessed his sin - ignorance and the iniquity of exaltation, and this guilt was removed from him. He joyfully submitted to the gospel. The conversion of the entire Ogdoad followed. Then the son of the great archon, now called Christ, communicated a ray of gospel light to the son of the second archon. The action was the same. Finally, the idea of ​​sonship, this power of the Most High (Luke 1:35), came upon Mary and fulfilled her son Jesus, this firstborn of the sons of God, the firstborn of all creation (Col.1:15), i.e., the third sonship in this world. He knew this hidden secret and proclaimed it. His suffering on the cross was not an atoning sacrifice for others. It was only a painful, but nevertheless inevitable process of separation (julokrinhsewV) of the pneumatic, psychic and material elements in Jesus. He suffered for himself and for himself. This crisis was resolved by the fact that the bodily nature in him returned to the ugly state in which everything in the world was (amorjia tou swrou), the psychic nature to the hebdomad, to the Ogdoad that which was from it, to the “spirit that which came from it,” and, finally, the “third sonship” in unalloyed purity ascended to the non-existent God. Thus, Jesus became the “firstfruits of the separation” of the mixed elements, which should lead to the revelation of the glory of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19), to the liberation of all spiritual people. As soon as this process of separation is completed and all the elements of the world mass are placed in the appropriate categories, the third and final act of world history will begin - the restoration of everything. God will send “great ignorance” to the whole world: the second archon will not know that there is a great archon above him, this latter will not know about the existence of sonship and non-existence. Nothing will experience a painful attraction to the highest, and everything will forever remain statu quo, at the level on which it is placed by its nature, which has become clear in its purity. This is apokatastasiV twn pantwn (“restoration of everything”). Irenaeus (I, 24, II, 16), Epiphanius (24) and others present the teaching of Basilides in a completely different way. The unborn, unnamed, ineffable Father develops from himself emanatively seven aeons: NouV, LogoV, JronhsiV, Sojia, DunamiV, Dikaioshnh, Eirhnh. These seven aeons represent the highest heaven. From the eons, principles, powers, and angels develop, i.e., the supreme sky is revealed in the external spiritual world parallel to it (antitupoV, reflected). Heavens develop after heavens, so that in the end the number of heavens reached 365. All this revelation of the Divine is designated by the mysterious “abraxaV”, a word whose letters in Greek counting make up the number 365. But through this, the periphery of light, represented by the hebdomad with the archon at its head, came too close to the limits of chaos, turbulent and hostile forces to the light. They attack the kingdom of light and the particles of light torn from it are imprisoned in the bonds of matter. But the archon with his spirits recaptures this prey, creates land from it and, by lot, divides its nationalities into administration among the hebdomad. Having himself received the Jews as an inheritance, he wants to subjugate all nations to his proteges. From here came wars and such disorder on earth that it was necessary to send down the Messiah to liberate people from the power of the world-creating angels. The firstborn of the first father, the first eon NouV appears in a ghostly body. When the Jews decided to crucify him, he laughed at them and, along with the cross, handed over his appearance to Simon of Cyrene, so that Simon was crucified, and NouV ascended to the pleiroma. According to Irenaeus, the moral views of the Basilidians also stood in connection with this theoretical teaching. During the persecution, they renounced both Judaism and Christianity, considering martyrdom due to a simple man crucified by mistake to be pure absurdity. And in other respects they declared themselves to be crude libertinists. – However, the news of Clement of Alexandria does not harmonize with this. The passages he quotes from Isidore’s ethics speak of the serious ascetic way of thinking of the sectarians, who preferred virginity to legal marriage. The difference between the two presentations is self-evident. The first begins with almost pantheism, the second with quite strong dualism. In the first, emanation is decisively eliminated; in the second it is brought to colossal proportions. The first features two archons with their sons and a tripartite sonship; Irenaeus has no mention of this. In turn, 365 heavens do not play any role in Hippolytus. Christ in the first case is presented completely in the Ebionite sense, there is no question of the actual incarnation of the Divine; in Irenaeus it is decidedly docetic. In a word, there are so many different things in the structure of both presentations that one can hardly hope for their perfect unification. Jacobi's experiment was unsuccessful. Schaff and Herzog repeat it, but very carefully. The first of the ascended first sonship makes 7 aeons, leaving the rest as described by Hippolytus. The Duke attaches soteriology to Irenaeus’s exposition based on Hippolytus (discarding, of course, the great archon). Therefore, it is more correct to consider both presentations as two special systems. But then the question arises: which of them is the original? Gilgenfeld [and Lipsius] stood on the side of Irenaeus, Ulgorn, Baur, Kurtz - on the side of Ippolitov and, it seems, with indisputable right. In modern times, the English scientist G. Salmon [The Cross-references in the Philosophumena in Hermathena 1885], having noticed that Hippolytus, in his presentation of various systems, contains many common passages and expressions of Holy Scripture, decided that this presentation of Hippolytus cannot be considered authoritative. Hans Stähelin tried to support Salmon’s opinion with his own argument in 1890 [Die gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts in seiner Hauptschrift gegen die Haretiker, in Texte und Untersuchungen v. Gebhardt u. Harnack, VI, Z]. Salmon and Stähelin suggest that Hippolytus had the misfortune to fall into the hands of a fraudster who delivered him documents about one of the Gnostic systems. Having met the trust of Hippolytus, this deceiver then began to supply him with various other false Gnostic systems. Thus, Hippolytus turned out to be a victim of deception. Everything that is original in the views of Hippolytus bears such a stamp, which undoubtedly indicates that the presentation passed through the hands of one editor. It is not surprising that the editor, who despised Gnosticism, mocked the Gnostics and sneered at his customer, the gullible Hippolytus, and therefore expounded Gnosticism to him in the most capricious manner. This opinion, adopted by Harnack (1885), thanks to his authority, became dominant in German historical science; but we absolutely cannot agree with him. What is true here is that indeed the information that Hippolytus used was collected before Hippolytus into a single work and passed through the hands of one editor. The indicated similarity is explained by the unity of the editor of the first set. But this similarity in relation, namely, to the system of Basilides, is not as striking as Stahelin suggests. The points of similarity which he points out are observed between those Gnostic systems which are not difficult to subsume under general categories: they are variations of the same basic thoughts. If Stähelin's work gives the impression of evidence in one direction, this is due to the fact that he sets out points of similarity without setting out complete systems. The least similarities are seen between the Ophite and Basilid systems. Here Stahelin omitted the characteristic feature that while in the Ophitic systems the Semitic element plays a large role, in the Basilidian it does not. And if the assumption that various types of systems, before they reached Hippolytus, passed through the hands of a collector who distorted them is correct, then, firstly, it is still far from concluding that Hippolytus became a victim of deception. And secondly, why was literary forgery needed then? Nowadays, when ancient manuscripts are highly valued, literary forgery for selfish reasons is understandable; but then there were no such motives. Manuscripts in ancient times were expensive, but because their production was not easy, and not because of their rarity. The assumption that Hippolytus was a rich man and paid dearly to the unreliable person he came across for the manuscripts cannot be proven in any way. If we do not have selfish goals in mind, then the guess about the fake will turn out to be incomprehensible. The fact that the system of Basilides, as presented by Hippolytus, is striking in its originality, forces us to admit that it is presented here as it came from the pen of the founder. In the presentation of Irenaeus, although he lived before Hippolytus, a reflection of Valentinova’s system is striking. From this we can think that the doctrine described by Irenaeus and Epiphanius is the result of the influence on the Basilidians from the gnosis of Valentinus, in which the emanation of the aeons is important. Valentine's gnosis subordinated other smaller forms of gnosis. The later Basilidians also succumbed to his influence, and from their original system they formed something similar to Valentinianism. To assume that Hippolytus expounded a later system would mean to assume that the unknown students were more original than their gifted teacher. The moral decomposition of the sect, which stands in connection with the views of the Basilidians, according to Irenaeus, also suggests that here we are dealing with a later formation: the ancient Basilidians, according to Clement of Alexandria, were distinguished by a serious, ascetic way of thinking. The very process of assimilation of Basilidianism with Valentinianism can (together with Kurtz) be represented in this form. Under the influence of Valentinianism, they wanted to put forward dualism more strongly. The great archon of the Ogdoad, as a demiurge, turned out to be superfluous, and, discarding ta uperkosmia (“supramundane”), the Basilidians turned him into the supreme god, the “ineffable father.” He was surrounded by 7 aeons, so that together with them he represented the Ogdoad, and his firstborn son - Christ - is identified with Christ - NouV, the first aeon. The count of planetary spheres, brought by Basilides to 7, increased to 365. Thus, discarding the upper parts of the Basilides system and eliminating the concept of panspermia, the later Basilidians adapted their system to the prevailing trend of Gnosticism of their time. In conclusion, a few words need to be said about the meaning of the Basilidian system. The beginning was most difficult for Vasilides. He has no theology at all, as a doctrine about God in himself. He simply proposes as a fact that there is a supreme principle on which everything depends and to which everything returns, and then there is a world dependent on it. The explanation of this fact is very difficult. Here he mixes both dualism, observed throughout the development of the world (in the consistent emphasis on sonship), and pantheism. Basilides defines the supreme principle with a number of negative provisions: not this, not that, and not that. Finally, he calls it ineffable; but even this position, in his opinion, is not accurate. If it were called ineffable, then this ineffable would already be uttered, it would cease to be ineffable. In the end he settles on the concept of o ouk wn qeoV, the non-existent God. No less clearly, Basilides denies the pre-existence of matter during the creation of the world. He considers it absurd to force God to create the world when something ready exists. He defines God’s relationship to the world with the expression: “the non-existent God weakly created the non-existent world from the non-existent” (o ouk wn qeoV aboulhtwV epoihse ouk onta kosmon ex ouk ontwn). From this it turns out that next to God in Basilides there appears another ouk onta. If you do not pay attention to this ouk onta (ex ouk ontwn), which is not o ouk wn qeoV, then it is pure monism. There is no matter opposite to God here. God Himself created the world through the word. But why is the world not consubstantial with God? The non-consistency of the world with God is a positive fact for Basilides. It must be admitted that perhaps Basilides deliberately introduces fog into his theory. When Basilides defines God as non-existent, he does not look ironically at a number of provisions with which he wants to prove that God is ouk wn. He comes to the conclusion that God is not ouk wn in the sense that He is only potentiality. God is absolute; in view of the absoluteness of God, he does not consider it possible to attribute any definition to God. Therefore, God has no being: God does not exist because He is above everything that exists, too high to exist. But that God is not a negative concept is proven by the fact that Basilides defines God as the highest goal of aspirations and beauty. It produces attraction, but only on homogeneous elements, not on everything, just as a magnet attracts only iron. Thus, in the doctrine of ouk wn lies the whole secret of his system. If you look at the matter from the other side, you will also need to admit that he was a remarkable thinker who could not come to a different definition. The basis of his system is the proposition that the world is not a being grounded in itself. He could not recognize the non-existence of the world with the existence of God. By calling God a being, he would thereby give sanction to the existence of the world, and then the latter would appear godlike; therefore, he needed to cut off at the root the existence (being) of the world and justify the denial of existence in the supreme beginning and define God as o ouk wn. We see the same thing in the system of definitions relating to the world. If he had recognized the biblical origin of the world (seven days), he would have imposed a sanction on the very existence of the world, declaring that God himself takes care of it, who creates the world according to his will. Basilides did not want to give the world even this sanction; according to his teaching, the world came into existence without the will (aboulhtwV) of God, although from God, but completely by accident, since His thought was not at all directed towards creation. To withstand this contingency, he could not maintain consistency in his view of creation. According to Basilides, God did not feel (anaisqhtwV) that the world arose from Him, as if it fell out by itself, like panspermia, and He seemed to have nothing to do with this phenomenon. Thus, heterogeneous elements are mixed here, which need to return to ta idia (“own”). He endures the next moment perfectly; in order to reject the existence of the world at the third point, he introduces tripartite sonship. The highest part of sonship appears in panspermia, as a protest against the very existence of the world. Thus, she does not take part in improving the world, and the world is completely unnecessary for her. Driven by natural attraction, the first sonship instantly stands out and rushes with the speed of the flight of thought towards the non-existent. The second sonship is not capable of such flight; therefore, from elements that are not homogeneous to him, he creates the Holy Spirit and, with his help, ascends beyond the boundaries of the world. Thus, the world outside the being of sonship has no value. But peace is needed for the third sonship. For the Holy Spirit, as non-consubstantial with the non-existent, it is impossible to enter the sphere of the non-existent, and it remains as the border between the world and the supermundane, as a pneuma metorion (border spirit). Next, the best elements of the world are highlighted. But that which is not consubstantial with God is not yet malignant in Basilides; it is good, but relative good. If there is a mistake in exalting the archons, it is the sin of ignorance, which is forgiven. The Archon is beautiful because he has an inherent desire for perfection: he gives birth to an even taller, even more beautiful, intelligent son. The world appears as a harmonious whole, in which the bliss of the higher members rests on the activity and energy of the lower ones. World history is presented in such a bright light that the darkest eras left room for anticipation of a better future. Everything will come true in due time, and the painful groans of the creature are resolved by the birth of the third sonship. In connection with this view, it is worthwhile that Basilides does not condemn any of the elements to destruction. But at the same time we attack the point where the pessimistic views of Basilides appear. The world's right to existence is denied, if you look at it from the point of view of the third sonship. Once the third sonship stands out, the world loses the raison d'etre of its existence, although it is not doomed to destruction. The phylocrinisis of sonship leads to the fact that other elements are also subject to division. Each element occupies the place that is characteristic of it. Obviously, the world, despite its wonderful laws, is fundamentally some kind of error and therefore itself destined for destruction. The world is not worth existing, and only the worst, only the weakest elements of it participate in world history. Everything that is better and higher is excluded from active participation in the development of the world. The Gospel itself only accelerates this painful process of separation and does not at all indicate a further goal for confusion. This negative attitude towards everything unfilial in the system of Basilides seems all the more cruel because the psychic in the person of the archons, their sons and the Spirit, here more than once proved submission to higher goals. Some (Baur) see a deep philosophical and moral meaning in this overthrow of the archons: this is how everything that at certain moments in history seemed great falls into insignificance, as soon as the self-developing spirit rises above this greatness. But at the same time they lose sight of the fact that the psychic itself was captured by the movement towards this highest stage of development and only an artificial barrier was placed between it and the highest ideal. The end of the world appears in such a form that the sonships ascend to God, the psychic elements to the hebdomad, and the higher elements to the ogdoad. But at the same time, Basilides considers this too unstable. The world contains such elements that no division is really possible. Only inorganic matter is capable of achieving stable equilibrium according to the law of gravity; everything spiritual is not subject to such balance. Therefore Basilides assumes that the best elements of the world will strive for the highest; but since this is not achievable, what will happen is as if the fish decided to eat grass on the mountains, along with the sheep. The One who does not exist (ouk wn), in order to prevent the suffering of the world, will send “great ignorance.” The Gnostic has a remarkable element: gnosis, although the greatest good, is not applicable to everyone. This great ignorance will bring peace and bliss. The Archon of our world will not know that there is a great Archon above him; this latter will not know about the existence of sonship and non-existence. Nothing will experience a painful attraction to the highest; the world will not suffer in vain. Thus, Basilides was unable to put all the moments of the world in the light of reason and ended with a partial renunciation of gnosis, when at the end of the world he put on the stage the “great ignorance” as a condition of relative bliss and thereby forcibly detained most of the world at a lower degree of perfection, thus recognizing that in panspermia, even purified of higher elements, such high principles are embedded that their consistent disclosure would only give a series of fruitless torments. Thus, the discord between good and happiness, between reality and ideal in Basilides remains unreconciled. In this form the system of Basilides is presented according to the Philosophumenae, and there is no reason to assume that this presentation belongs to a person ironizing the Gnostics. In essence, Basilides touched upon the problem that Christian dogma does not solve: namely, how is the bliss of the righteous possible during the suffering of sinners who were their friends during earthly life? Doesn’t the saying of the Bible: “I will be satisfied with Your glory forever” (Ps. 16:15) express the fact that a person in bliss will come to such ecstasy that he will not know anything from his surroundings? And this state is close to “great ignorance.” The greatest representative of the Alexandrian gnosis is Valentinus. He was originally from Egypt, and some of the names in his system, if not considered to be imported from elsewhere, indicate his Semitic origin. He taught in Alexandria, then around 140 he moved to Rome and here he represented such a significant force that he was almost made bishop of Rome; but they preferred Pius to him. Perhaps in Rome, or perhaps in Cyprus, his break with the church occurred. Died around 161 years old. His profound system, shining with all the luxury of poetic imagination, found many followers and made such an impression on his contemporaries that the dii minorum gentium (gods of small nations) of gnosis involuntarily submitted to its predominant influence. At the same time, the gnosis of Valentinus is known to us more than any other system, because more sources have been preserved about him, and according to his system, the ordinary current idea of ​​gnosis has been compiled. Irenaeus of Lyons directed his own work against Valentinianism: “Against Heresies.” The remarks of the famous Origen, who, in his interpretation of the Gospel of John, had in mind the commentary of Valentinus’ disciple Herakleon on this gospel, were also directed against the system of Valentinus. The gnosis of Valentina does not represent a homogeneous whole. With partial amendments, Ptolemy already brought completeness to his system. In general, it represents a religious poem, composed masterfully from the point of view of poetry and with a philosophical lining, which appears here more clearly than in other Gnostic doctrines. This religious poem, according to its plan, clearly falls into two parts, closely connected with each other both at the beginning and at the end. This is the history of “plyroma” and the history of “kenoma”, the history of the purest existence and the history of unconditional emptiness, pure non-existence. Both halves, in turn, are made up of two moments, creation and re-creation. History of plyroma. A) The First Beginning, the First Father of all things (Proarch, Protopatwr) is the self-existent “BuqoV” (depth, abyss of being), forming a marriage pair (suzugia) with “Silence” (Sigh), “Thought” (Ennoia) or “Grace” (CariV). From this syzygy the entire fullness (plhrwma) of spiritual existence develops, represented by 28 new eons, connected in various groups. First appears the “Only Begotten,” “Mind,” or “Father” (MonogenhV, NouV, Pathr) in syzygy with “Truth” (Alhqeia). Together with the first pair, this second one forms the first quaternary (tetraV). From Mind and Truth come the “Word” (LogoV) and “Life” (Zwh); from them “Man” (AntrwpoV) and “Church” (Ekklhsia). These four aeons, together with the tetrad, constitute the original osmerica (arcegonoV ogdoaV). Word and Life then develop from themselves five pairs of aeons or ten (dekaV), and Man and the Church six pairs, twelve (dwdekaV). Thus, the full number 30 (triakontaV) is formed, which represents the entire plyroma. The closely closed circle of the plyroma is guarded by the celibate (AzugoV) “Limit” (OroV), or “Cross” (StauroV), which, mediating between being and non-being, stands on guard as a limit, that is, as a negative force separating everything heterogeneous, and as a cross, that is, as a positive force that consolidates the existing order in place. This ends the first moment in the history of plyroma, its genesis. B) But in the plyroma itself there is a difference in the intensity of light and life. Quaternary, eightfold, tenfold and twelvefold are the degrees in which spiritual life passes diminuendo, weakening in degree, just as a sound weakens, moving away from its sounding center. All eons, from the first to the last, strive for knowledge of the “Depth”. But only the “Only Begotten” knows it adequately. He, who is in the bosom of his father, would like to confess him to all the aeons (John 1:18), but “Silence” forbids him to do so. Thus, the consciousness of unsatisfied longing permeates the entire pleroma, and where knowledge was weakest, this thirst for knowledge, this feeling of the difference between ideal and reality, develops to a painful state of passion (paqoV). “Sophia,” the last female eon of the dodecad, voluntarily breaks the union with the “Desired One” (QelhtoV) and, overwhelmed by thoughts, strives for union with the Origin, for direct contemplation of its perfections. She would have been threatened with complete destruction in the abyss of the self-existent if “The Limit” had not stood across the road and stopped her from striving. But her painful passion is resolved by the fact that she spontaneously conceives and gives birth to “Thought”, EntumhsiV, a pitiful and wretched female creature without appearance or form, an ugly miscarriage. Thus, the immutable structure of the plyroma was disrupted, and a freak appeared in the midst of its ideal light. Consistent development of spiritual life turns out to be impossible. A new period in the history of the pleroma opens with the fact that the lower eons, not even the eons of the second quaternary, but Mind and Truth themselves, produce “Christ” and “St. Spirit." This new syzygy is equal in origin to the first pair of the second quaternary. Christ and the Holy Spirit first of all calmed the agitated spirit of “Wisdom”, freed her from the thought that had taken possession of her and returned her to the “Desired One”. "Limit" threw Entumhsin beyond the border of the plyroma. Then Christ explained to all the eons the nature of the syzygies, proved that BuqoV is comprehensible only for the Only Begotten, that it is precisely in this incomprehensibility that lies the reason for the eternal existence of the pleroma itself, all its eons, and on the contrary, whatever is knowable in the divine life is perfectly revealed in the Son. And the Holy Spirit, by his influence, established blissful equality between the aeons, a condition of true peace. All eons, from the highest to the lowest, became Minds and Words, Men and Christs, and all the female eons became in the same way Truths, Lives, Churches and Spirits. Inexpressible joy has now replaced painful excitement, and overflowing with gratitude for their existence, all aeons sing a hymn to the supreme principle and, by the permission of Christ and the Spirit, sealed by the Only Begotten, each aeon produces what is best in it, in honor and glory of BuqoV. Thus, the emanation of the entire pleroma in its totality, its purest color, “the most perfect beauty and star, the perfect fruit,” appears, Jesus, also called patrwnumikwV, after his father, Christ and the Word. He is surrounded by a retinue (doruforoi of lower spirits, his “peers,” namely angels; but he has no bride in the pleroma. His eternal destiny is to save the lost; therefore he is Swthr. This pearl of perfection at the end of time must form a syzygy with the outcast of the pleroma, EntumhsiV. Thus, the life of the plyroma is closely connected with the life of the world. The genesis of the aeons ends with Sophia conceiving Entumhsin and thus laying the first foundation for the world. In Jesus the highest ideal of the pleroma is concretely realized in its restored and strengthened harmony; but the fullness of Jesus' life is conditioned only by the salvation of the world. The purpose of plyroma and the purpose of kenoma coincide with each other to the point of identity. The presented part of the Valentinian system, in the history of the pleroma, contains the theological teaching of this Gnostic. The difference between his gnosis and other forms in this case is that they usually bypass the doctrine of God in themselves, while Valentinus develops it with particular completeness. Only in his system does the doctrine of aeons, offered only fragmentarily by other Gnostics, find its ideal expression. How to look at these peculiar beings, presented with features so specific that they seem too similar to the angels of church teaching? Are they introduced only to mediate between the world and God, or does their existence have deeper roots? The task of Gnostic philosophizing is to explain the origin of evil or, in the mildest formulation of the question, to explain how the finite came from the infinite. On a dualistic basis, the finite is the proportional average between the absolute and matter, so to speak, a mixture of both. Where matter is a living evil force, this confusion is understandable: it is the result of a struggle between both principles. But where the second principle is pure nothingness, the struggle becomes impossible, and the task is extremely difficult: the finite, so different from the infinite, must be explained only from the infinite. Gnosis does not imply free self-restraint of infinite power in the creative act. Therefore, the action of absolute force must be adequate to itself, the cause must correspond to its effect, its energy. Only the absolute can come from the absolute. Most of the Gnostics, up to and including Basilides, shied away from the difficult beginning and proposed peace and God without explanation. Valentin tried to solve this philosophical problem and discover the limit of limitation in the life of the absolute and from it produce something lower than the first principle. The whole advantage of the section of his system under consideration is that it was written ad hoc, in cosmological interests, and, nevertheless, all development here is kept in the sphere of the absolute and we are dealing with theology in its own element. Valentinus's system is good in that it develops theology, but for its purpose - ad hoc, and thanks to a firm consciousness of this purpose, it, although partially, manages to present a solution to the question of the origin of the finite from the infinite. Valentinus' "Bythos" is incomprehensible, like the first principle of Basilides, but incomprehensible for other reasons. The non-existent Basilides seems too empty of content; he is almost nothing; on the contrary, the content of “Propator” is too rich and deep: it is BuqoV. Unknowable in himself, he lives, however, the life of the spirit, this can be guessed because his suzugoV is Ennoia or CariV. His life, therefore, is a life of thought and at the same time of the deepest self-bliss (gratia), although the definition of this life is impossible, because he lives in deep silence. But since Vithos is a spiritual being and thought, ennoia, is inherent in him, as his state, whether we call it the form or the content of his being, - in the unattainable depths of his self-consciousness there is a motive for its disclosure ad exträ in the most subtle process of thought that we can imagine, there is already a distinction between the thinker and the thinkable, there is a moment of objectification (cf. also: agaph hn oloV, h de agaph ouk estin agaph, ean mh u to hgaphmenon). Therefore, Valentin very successfully attributes the driving motive of revelation to th Ennoia or Sigh: “she wanted to break the bonds and carried away with her charm the Greatness itself (eqhlune to MegeqoV), and, uniting with him, showed the Father of truth.” In this sense, this point of teaching is understood by Valentina and Mark, one of the prominent representatives of this sect in the West, who lived in the second half of the 2nd century. He modified his teacher's doctrine to some extent, but understood its main meaning better than any outside interpreter. And from Mark’s words it becomes quite clear that all eons are moments of the inner life of the Divine. “Wanting to put into forms the invisible (morjwqhnai aoraton), Vithos uttered a Word similar to it. It, having appeared to him and bearing the image of the invisible, showed him what he himself is (upedeixen autw o hn autoV).” Thus, the first emanation of the self-existent is its objectified self-consciousness. But the whole life of the plyroma is the same internal process of the divine spirit, an exact expression of its content. Vithos says his name. It consists, according to Mark, of 30 letters and 4 syllables. First, he clearly pronounces the first four-letter syllable: this is a quaternary; then the second is a four-letter syllable, and this ends with the osmeritsa; then the third - from 10 letters and, finally, the last - from 12 letters, you get ten and twelve. Consequently, eons are only separate elements of God’s concept of Himself. Their life, like the polyphonic “Amen” of the church meeting, is only an expression of the life of the self-existent. They are letters, but in turn they fully express the elements of the Divine only when they themselves live the fullness of life. Let's imagine a triangle. While the meaning of this triangular sign has not been determined, it is a symbol of Vithos, enveloped in silence. But once we understand that this triangle is the letter “delta”, it has already been defined to such an extent that it can be expressed by a whole series (5) of signs, each of which in turn allows the same disclosure. You can sign that this is DELTA. Despite the fact that there is not just one sign, but 5 signs, there is no more content here than in the first sign, because this is also a “delta”, like that. But in turn, each of the (5) letters of this second row can be expressed in a new row of (18) letters, and under each of these latter letters its exact designation can also be signed. Thus, the content of the same delta can continue indefinitely, and each subsequent series of signs contains the same thing that is contained in the previous one. Thus, 5 letters contain no more than what is contained in one original letter; the next 18 letters contain no more than the previous 5 letters; finally, further from 18 letters we got 62 letters, but they again express the same delta (62 = 18 = 5 = 1). In each new series the same content is only more complexly expressed. Therefore, the inner development of the life of Vithos in the eons will be completed only when the very last of the letters of this name expresses in its life the very last of the infinite number of letters by which it is determined. “But,” adds Mark, “each letter of the divine name makes only its own sound, and does not repeat the divine name as a whole.” Therefore, each eon is individually different from other eons and at the same time lower than Vithos. He reveals in himself the life of the infinite and in infinite intensity, but life not as a whole, but only in one of its definitions. The supreme Vithos himself lives in each eon, but is fully aware of himself only in all eons. Thus, a mediation between the finite and the infinite has been found: the action of the absolute is adequate to the cause itself, but this action is the entire plyroma, and its individual parts are below it. The plyroma is infinite, but individual eons are already on the way to the finite. This consistent movement of the divine life towards the definite and complete is subtly outlined in the four syzygies of the Ogdoad. Vithos itself, like a delta that has not yet become clear in its difference from a simple triangle, does not yet have definitions. That he is a spirit, one can only guess about this, because this is indicated by his name suzugoV: Ennoia (thought in general, without a precise definition). His sphere is still silence. In the Only Begotten, the spiritual nature of the self-existent is revealed as “Mind”, which lives in the sphere of certain concepts: its suzugoV is an already determined thought, “Truth”. But in the quaternary God revealed himself only to himself, an und fur sich; He became conscious of Himself (revelatio ad intra). Therefore, Valentin quite tactfully puts here, so to speak, a column in the development of the life of the self-existent, he understands this quaternity as a kind of complete whole. In the second quaternary this content is gradually revealed ad extra. The mind, the innermost thought, appears here, first of all, as a discovered being, LogoV, the revealed “Word”, and its sphere is not only the representation of Truth, but “Life” itself, not theory, but reality. Finally, in “Man” the Logos receives an even more specific expression: AntrwpoV already lives in the “Church” as a certain form of “Life”. This mutual relationship between “Logos” and “Man” is clearly visible from the projection of their content, which is given in the names of the eons of ten and twelve. The zones of the ten, originating from the Logos, also have an abstract, metaphysical or cosmic character (originality, unity, mixture, real estate, agelessness). But the eons of the dodecad are already completely human, their names take us into the ethical world (the concepts of consolation, father, mother, faith, hope and love). The same Mark illustrates the mutual relationship of the members of the Ogdoad very clearly. BuqoV and Sigh do not yet have a representative in the field of sounds: silence is the very negation of sound. Mind - Truth are likened to the 9 consonants of the Greek alphabet, the so-called silent ones, i.e. labial, laryngeal and dental. The word - Life 8 semivowels, that is, the so-called smooth ones, which are heard as weak babble, and whistling ones, which, although weak, can be pronounced. Finally, Man - Church 'represent the divine life with the clarity of 7 vowel sounds: NouV – Alhqeia = bgd.qkp.tjc. = 9 dumb, LogoV – Zwh = lmnr.zoxy = 8 semivowels, AntrwpoV – Ekklhsia = aehi.ouw = 7 vowels. Thus, the content of the life of the absolute is gradually, so to speak, reduced. The variety of sounds decreases; from 9 sounds, first 8 and then 7 are obtained; but at the same time, the sound gains in clarity and becomes more and more audible. The idea that in the eons Vithos lives its own personal life is apparently contradicted by their completely concrete nature. They are independent realities, hypostases, rather than forces or definitions of the self-existent. In fact, the transition from the last representation to the first is quite easy. If in a person his strengths and qualities do not have an independent (enupostatoV) existence, then, perhaps, they reasoned then, this is only a consequence of his limitations. On the contrary, in the most real being, in God, each of His determinations can and must have an independent reality. Christian theistic philosophers of all times represent the relationship of the Son to the Father either under the form of the relationship of content to being (the Son is, so to speak, reality, content, and the Father is only existentiality) or, adhering to the view of Augustine, they understand the relationship of the Father to the Son as the relationship of one moment of consciousness to another. In both cases, the reality of Their hypostatic difference, not given in the explanatory analogy, is left beyond any doubt in the dogma being explained. Thus, if the Valentinian triacontada consists of 30 aeons, then in its basis it develops from the same view through which philosophers try to explain to themselves the existence of a trinitarian God: the triacontada is a tenfold triad (the Christian Trinity). Such a concrete, purely anthropomorphic representation of the eons was, however, very important for the further development of this religious epic. The transition from the infinite to the finite, from the spiritual to the psychic is made from this additional feature (anthropomorphism) in the idea of ​​eons. As abstract forces or qualities, they could be lower than God (as parts lower than the whole), could exist forever (as an eternal reproduction of one of the complex aspects of the life of the Deity), could differ from each other (in the degree of content or clarity of expression of the self-existent in them). But only when these features of the eons are presented anthropomorphically, when they have turned into beings with personal self-consciousness, is such an idea of ​​Sophia’s passionate attraction possible, which was resolved by the birth of EnqumhsewV, a thought, that is, a psychic principle, which, despite all its incommensurability with the divine, can only be explained from it. At this point, a transition is made (from passion, possible only in a specific being) to the second part of the poem, to the history of kenoma. History of Kenoma. A) Thrown by the “Limit” beyond the border of the plyroma, into the kenoma, EnqumhsewV, something without image and appearance (amorjoV kai aneideoV), rushes around the borders of the plyroma. Christ, the restorer of the latter’s order, extended His mercy to the Enfimisis: He stretched out His hands on the cross, that is, without leaving the plyroma, through its border touched the Enfimisis and gave it for the first time appearance and form. She began to exist. This was her first education - only in essence: morjwsiV kat ousian monon. The life of the spirit awakened in her. But she was not yet given knowledge. The bright image of Christ disappeared, and Achamoth, i.e. wisdom (Acamwq, Heb. plural = wisdom) rushed to the pleroma. But the Limit blocked her path, pronouncing the terrible name “Iaw” before her. She remained in an empty space, subject to affects even stronger than those previously experienced by her mother, the heavenly Sophia. Achamoth is sad (luph, because she failed to penetrate the plyroma. She fears (joboV) lest her awakened life disappear just as the light of Christ disappeared. She languishes with terrible ignorance of everything (agnoia) and this produces in her an oppressive consciousness of complete helplessness (despair, aporia). But - such is the property of the nature of the finite spirit, in which lies a vague consciousness of the ideal - her bitter tears of sadness are interrupted by a joyful smile when she remembers the bright image of Christ. Her thoughts more and more often turn to the plyroma (epistrojh) with prayer and repentance (ikesia, dehsiV, metanoia). Thus, she has the potential to triumph over her suffering. But she achieves this victory only when Jesus himself, surrounded by a bright formation of angels, appeared to her in a kenome and enlightened her with the light of knowledge. This was her second education - in knowledge: morjwsiV h kata gnwsin. Now she is already objective about her affects and is freed from them. In a feeling of joy, she gives birth to a spiritual nature in the likeness of the angels, but she herself is not higher than this spiritual nature, but is only consubstantial with it, and therefore cannot form it. Then, moved by Jesus, she directs her creative power to her affects and creates from circulation - psychic nature (dexia) and her father and king of material nature (aristera) - the demiurge. From lower affects she creates: from sadness - matter, from horror - mountains, from tears - seas, from despair - demons. This was the beginning of the lower world, which in its structure and in its history should be a reflection of the plyroma. Achamoth ascends above the seven planetary spaces in topoV thV mesothtoV (“place of the middle”) on the border of plyroma and kenoma, to the eighth heaven, the eight, which should be a reflection of the Ogdoad existing in the plyroma. Unknown to the demiurge himself, she is the image of the invisible Viphos. On the contrary, the demiurge, the beginning of the entire created world, is the likeness of the Only Begotten. Under the influence of Achamoth, he, without realizing it, creates everything according to the ideas of the plyroma: without knowing “Man” himself, he creates a person from the psychic and earthly elements, and Achamoth breathes into him the spark of the spiritual principle born by her. Man has become higher than his creator. Over the course of world history, three kinds of people stand out more and more clearly: 1) material (ulikoi, coikoi; Cain; Luke 9:57,58), wholly devoted to sensual desires (pagans), 2) spiritual (yucikoi; Abel; Luke 9:61,62), consubstantial with the demiurge and his favorites (Jews), and 3) spiritual (pneumatikoi; Seth; Luke 9:60; Luke 19:5), the high aspirations of which the demiurge did not understand, but to which he treated with vague respect: he often chose from them (because Achamoth imparted the pneumatic principle only to the best souls) his prophets. Thus, guided by Achamoth, they could communicate pneumatic truths to people. The societies of which the Cainites were representatives are completely given over to sensual desires. From them the pagans are formed. B) When a certain time came and the psychic Messiah promised by the demiurge descended to earth, the heavenly Jesus the Savior, who descended on him in the form of a dove, united with him at baptism. Since matter, by its very nature, is doomed to destruction, the body of the Messiah (the lower Christ) consisted of mental elements and only kat oikonomian (“by economy”) was it visible and tangible. Therefore, even the lower Christ passed through Mary, only as water passes through a pipe (kaqaper udwr dia swlhnoV). Jesus revealed higher knowledge to people: in His nature, history and teaching He revealed the secrets of the pleroma. His fourfold nature (1. Jesus, and in the lower Christ - 2. spiritual from Achamoth, 3. soulish from the demiurge and 4. swma oikonomikon, “house-building body”) was a symbol of the fourfold. His 30 years from birth to baptism pointed to the 30 aeons from which the plyroma is composed. Having resurrected the 12-year-old daughter of Jairus, healing the bleeding woman who had suffered for 12 years, He symbolically pointed to the suffering of the 12th eon of the dodecad, Sophia, and in his dying languor depicted the mystery of the suffering of Achamoth (sadness, Matthew 26:38; fear, Matthew 26:39; helplessness, John 12:27). His crucifixion itself did not have any redemptive significance: the upper Jesus was separated from the lower Christ when he was still brought to Pilate. His spiritual element was also inaccessible to suffering. Only the psychic element suffered on the cross, but even then not in the proper sense, but only mysteriously (musthriwdwV), in order to depict how the heavenly Christ (o anw CristoV) once stretched out his hands on the cross and imparted formation to Achamoth in essence. Finally, having appeared after the resurrection as if to a certain monster, the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:8), the Savior revealed the secret of his appearance to another monster, thrown out of the pleroma of Achamoth, and its education according to knowledge. Finally, the greatest mysteries of the plyroma are symbolically indicated in the Gospels. The Valentinian system is a unique interpretation of the first chapter of the Gospel of John. It is, according to the Valentinians, that the tetrad is indicated in Art. 14 (Pathr, i.e. BuqoV, CariV, MonogenhV, Alhqeia), Ogdoad in Art. 1 and 4 (LogoV en arch [= Nw, the beginning of revelation] hn proV ton Qeon [= Buqon]. en autw [tw Logw] zwh [His suzugoV] hn kai h zwh hn to jwV twn anqrwpwn [i.e. from Zwh – AntrwpoV, and his suzugoV – Ekklhsia itself is implied myself]). Thus, the significance of Christianity, according to the Valentinian view, consists only in the communication of gnosis and in facilitating the way for pneumatics to liberate themselves from matter. However, the spiritual cannot perish by its very nature, just as the material cannot get rid of destruction. On the contrary, those who are spiritual can either, through exploits, join the side of the spiritual or descend to the side of the material; however, this depends not so much on their free disposition as on their natural inclinations (there are souls who are good by nature and souls who are evil). The consummation of the whole world will be that the entire pneumatic element, sown by Achamoth in the souls of the righteous as an infant, but here brought up and developed to maturity, will be freed from the bonds of the world. Then Achamoth will enter the pleroma, like a shining bridal chamber, and will form a syzygy with his eternal bridegroom Jesus. Together with her, all the “spirits” (pneumata) will enter there, like brides (Heb. femin) of angels - doruforoi (lit. “spearmen, bodyguards”). The demiurge, this good by nature, but only a limited being, who never resisted the beckons of the plyroma, is the demiurge who, having learned the truth from Jesus, like the Gospel centurion, bowed before Him and went over to Him with all his army, and even - like Simeon - with the words: “Now do you let go of Your servant, Master!”, welcomed in Him his deliverer from a heavy burden. the burden of ruling the world, - will now enter with the righteous souls surrounding him into the ogdoad abandoned by Achamoth, and here they will find perfect peace (anapausontai eiV to panteleV), the first - as a reward for his zealous and beneficial governance of the world for the church, the latter as a reward for a virtuous life. At the same time, the fire hidden in the depths of things will break out and destroy both silts, unworthy psychics, and matter itself. Many features of Valentine's cosmological system distinguish it favorably from other Gnostic teachings. The dualistic principle remains completely in the shadows here. Kenoma is only empty, and is unable to produce its suppressive effect even on the outcast Enqumhsin. Matter itself is only the deposited, crystallized affect of this strange creature, which, with all its imperfections, is still a product of the life of God himself (a pantheistic feature, which is why “Man” appears as the self-revelation of God). In the history of Enfimisis, a high example of the human spirit is given, and in the most difficult struggle with itself, carrying within itself the saving ideal of the unearthly and, finally, winning with heavenly help. In Sophia-Achamoth, enlightened by suffering, who finally enters the pleroma as the bride of the most perfect Jesus, the high meaning of the moral life of humanity is indicated. Evil in the world does not play an overwhelming role. The demiurge himself is a good being, but only of low knowledge. Even the best psychics are promised a high degree of bliss. Life also has its value for the human spirit: it descends to earth in an infant state, and returns to Sophia as a mature husband. But the general Gnostic basis manifests itself here in its overwhelming form. The meaning of life for pneumatics is understood too shallowly. Gold glitters even in dirt; the spirit will be saved no matter how it lives, and its improvement on earth is some semblance of a purely naturalistic process. Moral deeds even for the psychics themselves lose their meaning because both salvation and destruction are determined by nature itself. Redemption is understood, as usual, superficially. It consists exclusively of teaching, and here this Gnostic feature is expressed more strongly than anywhere else. The crucifixion of the Messiah on the cross was only a reproduction, an image of how the heavenly Christ stretched out his hands in the pleroma on the cross and thus gave the first formation of Achamoth-Sophia. Then, the very fact of the crucifixion is historically equated with such an event as the conversion of the Apostle Paul. The latter, according to Valentin, is not only no less important in the matter of redemption, but even, perhaps, greater, because it corresponds to the final education of Sophia in her leadership. Christianity is understood externally: it does not bring any spirit of life, but only brings the news of the imminent end of the world. And this idea is expressed in the fact that the demiurge, this living symbol of the world, greets the Savior like a decrepit old man who joyfully awaits only his death. The life of the world is not justified here in terms of its purpose, just as it is not justified in terms of its origin. The very starting point of the world presents an insoluble riddle. It begins with the suffering of Sophia-Achamoth, but this suffering befalls her not through her fault; Thus, it is very difficult to motivate them from a moral point of view, and they lay the foundation for the self-existence of the world. Consequently, the entire universe oscillates here at its very root. Valentine's school soon divided on the issue of the body of Christ into two independent branches: the eastern, which attributed to him only a spiritual body, and the western - Italian, which was content only with the denial of the material and allowed the mental. In general, the doctrine of eons was subject to revision in particulars. The Italian school was more wonderful than the Eastern one. The latter included Axionicus or Azionicus in Antioch and Bardesianes (Ardesianes, Bardesanes, Bar-Daisan). To the first - Herakleon (remarkable for its allegorical interpretation of the Gospel of John) and Ptolemy (epistle to Flora on the Old Testament), distinguished by a moderate direction that brought them closer to the church, then Kolarbas (according to Baur, not a person, but a concept: kol'arbá, the whole quaternity, or qol-'arbá, the voice of the quaternity), and the aforementioned Mark, who came from Syria and clothed the doctrine of Valentine in Kabbalistic forms (an inexhaustible game of letters and numbers). The school of Carpocrates (Alexandrian), a contemporary of Basilides, is especially famous for its libertinistic tendency. He taught that the beginning of everything is monaV, the unit from which everything comes and to which everything returns. The world was created by angels (aggeloi kosmopoioi), who fell away from the monad. Therefore, evil is the very principle of individuality, which the creators of the universe want to consolidate in law and popular religions. But the chosen souls remember their high origin and strive for unity. Such were also the case in the pagan world, and such was Christ, the son of Joseph and Mary. All others must follow their path - with the hope of a perfection equal to, and perhaps even higher than, what Christ achieved. This true path is the trampling of the laws of the creators, under the guidance of natural inclinations, with nirvana (unity) in perspective (Buddhism). Nature is neither good nor evil; it is not an important matter to maintain one’s independence from matter by suppressing one’s sensual attractions; the law will be violated when the Gnostic surrenders to them, but is not overcome by them. They revered Christ on a par with Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato and others. The son of Carpocrates, Epiphanes, introduced the intercourse of wives. A church was built for him in Kefallinia (“cult of geniuses”). The most important representative of Syrian gnosis is Saturninus or Satornil, who taught in Antioch under Hadrian (117–138). His system is not complicated. From the “unknown God” (agnwstoV qeoV) a number of eons arise emanatively. The weakest of them, the seven planetary spirits, are like world-ruling angels (kosmokratoreV). At their head is the Jewish God. They decided to create a kingdom for themselves, independent of the plyroma. To this end, they raid matter, eternally hostile to light, in which Satan rules, and seize part of the matter. They create a world out of it and, in the likeness of the bright image sent down to them by an unknown God that floated before them in the distance, they create man. But this pitiful creature could not even stand upright and only crawled like a worm. God took pity on the unfortunate creation, nevertheless created in His image and likeness, and, sending into it a spark (spinqhr) of light, thus animated it with pneumatic life. But Satan contrasted this kind of people with other people created from matter, and through them he began to cruelly persecute the former. The God of the Jews was too weak to protect them. He sent prophets, but Satan successfully opposed them with his own false prophets. Finally, the good God, to save pneumatics, sent in His ghostly body the Messiah, the first eon - NouV, who taught people how, through gnosis and the strictest asceticism, to completely free themselves from the bonds of matter and not only from Satan, its ruler, but also from all the angels of the world. The strictest asceticism lay in the principles of this sect; marriage and meat food are considered illegal here. From this sketch of the theoretical teaching of Saturninus it is clear how difficult it is to justify in practice the usual division of Gnostic systems into Alexandrian and Syrian, assuming in the former only a weak dualistic, and in the latter a strong dualistic basis. Saturninus, however, emphasizes dualism at one end, strengthening the fundamental difference between God and matter by the fact that the latter gives its living and personal representative, Satan, who even creates a special kind of people. But in other details the dualism of this Syrian system is simply colorless in comparison with the various ramifications of the systems that are recognized as Alexandrian. For example, in Carpocrates, the world-creating angels stand in a more hostile attitude towards the Supreme God, creating the world, so to speak, to spite Him; for Saturninus, man is not only created in the image of God, but also animated by Himself; The angels who are the rulers of the world are only powerless here, but they are not hostile to God. Then, in other branches of the Alexandrian system, the struggle between matter and God is carried out much more stubbornly, and at the beginning of the universe, matter itself goes on the offensive in relation to the kingdom of light; in Saturninus, matter is held only defensively; the angels themselves attack it. Satan does not succeed here in tearing out a single member from the kingdom of light, as is repeated more than once among the Alexandrians. Angels do not think of resisting God: they are only powerless to carry out their good intentions. Compare this to the situation of Jaldabaoth. The unknown God suddenly realizes his goals through the Messiah: here there is not that series of terrible defeats that the supreme power experiences in the fight against matter in the doctrine of Justin. Finally, docetism is also found among the Alexandrians (Sithians, later Basilidians, Valentinus). Only rigoristic morality distinguishes Saturninus and other so-called Syrians from the Alexandrians. As another remarkable example of the Syrian system, one can point to the system of Marcion, but this can only be pointed out with a reservation. In the scientific world in the West, the thesis has long been repeated that Marcion’s system is not Gnostic. In 1823, this thesis was posed in Hahn's doctoral dissertation. In 1874, it was again repeated in full by the famous modern scientist Harnack (A. Harnack, De Apellis gnosi monarchica. Lipsiae 1874: Marcion perperam gnosticus vocatur). In fact, the characteristic features of Marcionism represent too many differences from the general trend of Gnostic systems. Marcion, according to legend, was the son of the bishop of Sinope. He devoted himself, apparently, to Christianity with all the fervor of his strong and energetic nature. He began by renouncing his property. But he could not reconcile the loving nature of the New Testament with the severity of the Old Testament. The connection with Jewish history that the Christian Church maintains seemed to Marcion to be a fruitless attempt, condemned by Christ, to pour new wine into old wineskins (Matthew 9:17). Polemical passages from the epistles of St. Paul gave him a starting point for a unique presentation of Old Testament and New Testament history. His system, despite the enormous differences in basic techniques, resembles in some of its features the ideas of the New Tübingen critical school. It was probably this zealous anti-Judaism of Marcion, and not another vice that did not correspond to his severe ascetic character, that prompted his father to excommunicate him from the church. Marcion retired to Rome (under Pope Igina, 137–141). Here he met the Syrian Gnostic Cordon, and under his influence Marcion's doctrine received a Gnostic coloring. Under Eleuthera (174–189) he was excommunicated from the Roman Church and separated from it completely. Marcion is not actually solving a Gnostic question about the origin of the world, at least not in the formulation given to him by the Gnostics. He takes his starting point from Christianity and directly raises the question of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Marcion did not recognize any special mysterious revelation that was supposedly given to him. He uses the canonical sacred books of the church itself, but only abbreviates some of them, and discards others. He formed his distorted gospel, basing it on the Gospel of Luke and his apostolic code of 10 epistles. Paul, with the exception of the conciliar letters, pastoral letters and to the Hebrews, wrote a special work, AntiqesiV, in which he proved his main point that the God of the New Testament cannot be identical with the God of the Old Testament. To characterize what he made of the gospels and apostolic writings, a few lines can be cited. The famous saying of Christ (Matthew 5:17) was read in such a distorted form: “I came to destroy the law, and not to fulfill it.” Then, in Christ’s address in prayer to God (Luke 10:21), Marcion reads: “I praise Thee, Father, Lord of heaven” (with the omission of the word “and the earth” because he did not consider the earth to be the creation of the Supreme God). Then Christ is accused before Pilate (Luke 23:2) with the following addition: “we have found that he corrupts the people, ruins the law and the prophets, turns away wives and children.” It is also characteristic in the sense of his opposition to general Gnostic methods that he could not tolerate allegorism and directly put forward the position that Scripture should not be interpreted allegorically. Church-practical life was in the needs of his nature. Even his ancient opponents praise him for his strict asceticism. The structure he gave to his sect was simple, but, in general, ecclesiastical. His followers, as he called them, "suntalaipwroi kai summisoumenoi", companions of his misfortunes, who shared with him the people's hatred against him, were divided into the perfect and the catechumens. But Marcion established the difference in comparison with the church that his catechumens were obliged to be present at all parts of the divine service on the basis that they, as less enlightened, all the more needed to learn about Christian truth. Marcion, judging by all the data, did not draw up a strictly developed system. Perhaps already in his own individual expressions lay various contradictions that served as the basis for disagreement among his own school. It is therefore difficult to restore Marcion’s original system, since it has reached us with additions from a later period, and its most coherent tradition, preserved in the work of Eznik of Bagrevand, an Armenian bishop of the 5th century, represents a later revision of Marcionism. One must, however, think that the starting point of Marcion’s view was pure dualism, and the most extreme one at that. He contrasted the good God, the Father of Christ, with an evil principle, namely in the person of the righteous demiurge, the righteous creator of the world: “dikaioV” was for Marcion the same as “kakoV”. At least one of his expressions has been preserved: “the demiurge is evil and his creations are evil.” He took a completely principled stand. Recognizing Christianity alone, he treated with equal denial everything that was not Christianity, not believing any degree differences between non-Christian discoveries. Therefore, he formed a view on Judaism that was too confusing even for his immediate disciples - he thought that Judaism in its quality was no different from paganism. Even Marcion’s closest followers could not rise to such a high degree of anti-Judaism, so they began to rework his system, namely, they introduced in the form of a third principle the concept of a just demiurge, distinct from matter with its main representative, Satan. Thus, the three-part principle in Marcionism must be considered the latest growth of this system. The world seemed to Marcion as the creation of a “justified demiurge.” To maintain moral order in him, he gave him a law, but did not breathe into man, so to speak, moral strength to fulfill this law. The Demiurge wanted to maintain the moral order in the world by the severity of his instructions. But the result of this was that people suffered cruelly on earth. But just as cruel was their punishment by the just demiurge after death. He sent all the people who sinned against his law (and there were no sinners) to hell. Finally, the “good God,” out of free mercy, as a God of pure love and grace, took pity on the suffering human race and decided to free it from the power of the demiurge. For this, he sent the Messiah to earth in a ghostly body, or - which is more correct and more consistent with the view of Marcion, for whom the hypostatic difference in the Trinity was unclear - the good God himself, in the mode of the Son, descended in a ghostly body, revealing himself in the 15th year of Tiberius, posing as the Messiah promised by the Jewish God. He betrayed knowledge that was still unknown to people, taught them how to free themselves from the demiurge, but by this he aroused the enmity of the demiurge himself, who nailed the Messiah to the cross. Of course, God’s suffering was only ghostly, because He appeared in a ghostly body. But crucifixion was necessary for Him so that he could become like the dead: hell, in which the souls of the dead were imprisoned, was not open to anyone living. Thus, He took advantage of His ghostly death to free from the bonds of all the imprisoned dead who suffered from the just demiurge. But this did not end His mission. According to the later processing of Marcionism (by Eznik), God, already strictly different in the hypostatic sense from His Son - the Messiah, sent Him to teach people knowledge and free both the dead and the living from the power of the demiurge. The liberation of the dead was accomplished through the crucifixion of Christ and His descent into hell, and for the liberation of the living, Marcion envisioned the second coming of the Messiah. He now appeared not in a ghostly human body, but in His glory and entered into court with the demiurge. Christ chose the very law given by the demiurge as the basis for judgment. He accused him of acting unjustly and not fulfilling his own law. Christ asked the demiurge: “Did you write in the law: “Whoever sheds the blood of a man, his blood will be shed” (Gen. 9:6)? Demiurge admitted that his law contains such words. Then Christ pointed out that instead of gratitude for His various benefits to the human race, done completely free of charge, the demiurge crucified Him on the cross. Thus, the demiurge had to admit that he had violated his own law and was subject to execution. Then he began to beg Christ to spare him, promising to give Him all those who would believe in Him. Thus, the just demiurge himself created the legal basis for Christianity to appear on earth. After this, Christ, appearing to the ap. Paul, converted him; raptured him to the third heaven, showed him unspeakable verbs (2 Cor. 12:2-4), from where he learned that all people were “bought with the price” (1 Cor. 6:20) of the suffering of the Son of God. Marcionism turned out to be more stable in its church organization than other Gnostic sects. We meet it in the 6th-7th centuries, although in significant confusion with the dualism of Manichaeism, similar to it in its starting point. In the 4th century. Marcionism was still a very significant force not only in the east, but also in the west. Appendix: Mandants (so-called “Christians of John the Baptist”) In the half of the 17th century. in Europe for the first time they learned about the existence of “Christians of St.” near the city of Basra on the lower reaches of the Tigris. John." In the 50s of the 19th century, these supposed disciples of St. Petermann visited John the Baptist and collected more complete information about them. Among their neighbors they are known as subba (in Arabic, from the singular sabi), i.e. baptizers, and they willingly accept this name in order to be considered as those Sabians whom Muhammad legitimizes patronage in the Koran, as people who have the scripture. The more learned of them call themselves Nasoraje, Nazirites, that is, Christians, although there is nothing Christian about them. But their generally used name is mandaje, i.e. gnwstikoi. As can be seen from the teaching contained in their sacred books, they are undoubted Gnostics. Pira rabba, "great glory" - so called BuqoV in this system - has next to it "the ether of the radiance of the great and the "great spirit", mana rabba, from which flows the "great Jordan" in this radiant ether. Having "suzugoV" D'muta ("omoiwsiV") next to him, he calls into being the "first life" and then returns to the contemplation of the "great glory." The first aeon - the “first life” is God himself, developing from himself the pleroma “utre” utre, beginning with the first pair: the “second life” and the “leading life” manda d'hajje, from which the Mandayas take their name. While the “second life” was demoted for “water channels” for trying to rise above the “first life”, the “leader of life” remained with the “great spirit”, like his beloved son. Manda-d-haye is the LogoV of this system; as the God of revelation, he is gabra qadmaja, the “first man”, successively incarnated in the world initially in the form of Hibil, Sitil and Anus (Abel, Seth, Enos), at the end of time - in the form of Yahya or Juhana bar Zkarja, John the Baptist. Hibil or Hibil-Ziva, “Shining Abel” is its predominant embodiment – ​​the “Christ” of this system. The universe begins with the 360th eon (the last), the “old-hidden-guardian” [cf. StauroV-OroV], "Abatur", i.e. "Father of the Morning", looked into the "black water" [kenwma], and from his reflection arose P'tahil - Gabriel the "opener" [dumiourgoV]. At the command of Abathur, he creates heaven and earth, Adam and Eve, but is unable to raise them to their feet; they can only crawl. Then Khibil-Sitil-Anush from the “first life” received the command to breathe into Adam and Eve the spirit from the “great spirit”, to teach them how to lead life, namely: so that they, knowing about the things above, would not honor their creator P’tahil, would be purified by baptism and lead a married life (Subba - according to the principle of polygamists). As a result, P'tahil lost power over people, and Abathur, angry with him for this, threw him out of the world, where he is kept until the last judgment, when Khibil-Zyva baptizes him and makes him king over all the mornings (a well-known claim of ancient, but historically impoverished peoples). One of the characteristic features of this doctrine is the descent of Hibil-Ziva into hell, into which not only the ancient Babylonian gods are included (in the form of dark forces), but also the holy names of Christianity (identified with them), and the victory over all its forces. The world is destined to exist for 480,000 years, and it has already been destroyed three times, with the exception of a single human couple. After Nu (Noah), the period of false prophets opens: Abraham, a worshiper of Adunai the sun, Misha (Moses), during which only the Egyptians kept the true religion, Shlimun bar-Davit (Solomon), who was served by demons, Yishu Mshiha (Christ), who was mistakenly baptized by the only true prophet at that time, who had appeared at Pontius Pilate, Yukhana-bar-Zkarya, preacher of repentance, incarnation of Hibil-Ziva. To counteract Mshikha, Anush came down from heaven, received baptism from Mshikha, performed miracles and, accusing him before the Jews, brought him to death on the cross, and scattered the Jews themselves, who killed Yahya (Yukhana), throughout the world, their capital Urashlam [a name that means: Ur (one of the hellish spirits) committed (this city, Jerusalem)] destroyed, proclaimed the true faith, sent 360 true prophets to preach it, and he himself returned to the pleiroma. But he came down to earth again when the “last false prophet” appeared, after whom there will be no more false prophet, Mhamad (Muhammad); Anush revolved around him and his son-in-law Ali and prevented them from manifesting their harmful energy in its entirety. After Mhamad, the world remained to exist for 4 or 5 thousand years; then the death of the world, its new population from a new human couple, 50,000 years of a new world (chiliasm), and the destruction of everything material and evil; eternal kingdom of light. The Mandaye have a male hierarchy of three degrees. 1) Shkanda, deacons (after 12 years of study, not younger than 19 years). 2) Tarmida (i.e. “disciples” = talmida) elders, after - minimum - one-year service in the office of shkanda and temptation (seven days of vigil - with snatches of sleep of no more than 15 minutes each, then 60 days of the strictest Levitical purity, with the obligation to begin this 60-day test again in case of violation of this condition by the subject or his household; therefore, instead of 60 days, this test often lasts 4–5 months) and some ceremonies (funeral service of the subject and baptism twice) ordained by the bishop in concelebration with two presbyters or only presbyters on the trust of the bishop, who have the right to perform baptism over others. 3) Gansivra, “guardians of the treasure” (i.e., “great book”), bishops produced from the tarmid after interpreting, over the course of three Sundays, three of the most difficult passages from the sacred books before the assembly of the tarmid and other religious ceremonies. Finally, the 4th theoretical degree would be rish-amma, “head of the people,” who would unite in himself the supreme civil and spiritual power. The Mandaya does not have this degree at the present time, and throughout world history there were only two Rish-Ammas, both of non-earthly (mountain) origin: the first before Yahya, it was Pharaoh, the second after Yahya, it was Adam-abu-l-faraj. In addition to the male hierarchy, they have a female hierarchy of two degrees: a shkanda of maidens, who can be elevated to the degree of tarmid if they marry a tarmid or a ganzivr. Wed. ai diakonoi and ai preusbuterai of the ancient church. There are two sacraments (more precisely: the main religious ceremonies): baptism, masbata, repeated many times for cleansing from sins, and communion, pehta (spoiled Syrian petha) with wine and heavenly bread of the inhabitants of the kingdom of light (a thin flatbread baked from unleavened wheat dough in a new oven by the presbyters, cut into small round pieces, taught by the presbyter directly into the mouth; from touching it with the fingers of the communicant, this wafer would lose its mysterious power) - on holidays to receive mysterious powers. The Mandaye have 6 holidays in a year, of which the ascension (to the pleroma, upon the return from hell, of Hibil-Ziva), baptism (obligatory for everyone, three times a day, during this five-day holiday) and the remembrance of the Egyptians who drowned in the Red Sea are characteristic. In the 19th century, there were few of these “Gnostics” left (according to Petermann, up to 1,500 souls). This phenomenon is of interest a) as an archaistic remnant of a movement that in its main current disappeared a long time ago, and b) as a prominent indicator that gnosis - in its main representatives, which declared itself only through its anti-Judaism - was an anti-Christian movement, fighting against Christianity by compromising with it. In its main systems, gnosis recognized in Christ the brightest phenomenon in world history; here, on the contrary, there is hostility against Christ, Christianity and the peculiarities of Christian life (asceticism, fasting, celibacy, icons), barely inferior to hostility against Judaism. And, however, this is not antinomian gnosis, whitening everything black, starting with Cain: Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah are recognized here. This phenomenon is more easily explained by the assumption, which Kessler disputes, that the Mandae are the disciples of John who strayed into gnosis. The speeches of the preacher of repentance on the banks of the Jordan excited the entire Jewish world to Babylonia (the Mandaye language is an interesting remnant of the language of the Babylonian Jews). Some of the “disciples of John,” who also appeared in Babylonia, “even though the Holy Spirit is” heard (Acts 19:2), did not understand the meaning of the mission of the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, took a hostile position in relation to Christianity and, remaining behind this world-conquering power, hated Christians from the full depth of their impotent malice and envy. But unrecognized by the Jews, perhaps persecuted or looked down upon (on a par with the baptized proselytes who followed only the commandments of Noah?), the Johannites also hated the Jews. Noah is the last great phenomenon of Old Testament history. False prophets are already coming from Abraham. Neither the great lawgiver Moses, nor Solomon, the brilliant representative of the political power of Israel, meets with the sympathy of the Johannites; Pharaoh and the Egyptians are the true lights of this long historical night. Jerusalem is also hated by the Mandayas; they rejoice at the defeat of the Jews. Only John the Baptist and the Jordan, sanctified by his activity, constitute a cherished exception. But still connected with Christianity by the unity of the historical soil - the living conditions of New Testament times, mandaje in their institutions represent something similar to a copy of the Christian life of the most ancient period. IV. Spread of Christianity 1. Sources of information about the spread of Christianity Information about the spread of Christianity in ancient times is borrowed partly from individual places of ancient Christian writing in general, partly from special literature - apocryphal. The first gives a summary overview of the results already achieved in the work of preaching; works of another kind are in the nature of monographs. 1) All summary reviews are contained, strictly speaking, in Tertullian alone. His writings seem to present a true picture of what Christianity had become by the first decade of the third century. In his essay “Against the Jews” he says: “In whom, if not in Christ, did all the nations believe? But in whom did other peoples also believe: the Parthians, the Medes, the Elamites, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Pamphylia, Egypt and parts of Africa beyond Cyrene, and the inhabitants of Rome, and the Jews who then lived in Jerusalem, and other peoples, and various inhabitants of Getulia, numerous inhabitants of Mauritania, all the borders of Spain, various peoples Gaul, and places in Britain inaccessible to the Romans, but subject to Christ, and likewise the Sarmatians, Dacians, Germans, Scythians and many distant peoples, and many islands and provinces unknown to us, which we cannot even list.” Addressing the Roman authorities, Tertullian says: “We have existed only since yesterday and, however, we have filled everything you have: cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, cathedrals, camps, tribes, curiae, palace, senate, forum.” Then, when he is confronted with the objection that Christians are the enemies of the Roman Republic, he says: “If we are your enemies, then you have more enemies than citizens, because all your citizens have become Christians.” Such places, of course, indicate that Christianity was spreading quickly, and that Christians of the 2nd century were convinced that there were many of them everywhere. But it would be unscientific to recognize the historical significance behind every detail of such tirades. The tone of such places is too oratorical. The passage cited from Tertullian’s work “Against the Jews” speaks for itself. The Christian speaker exhausts his entire stock of geographical information without the possibility of confirming with concrete facts all these multae - diversae - omnes. This is evident from the fact that he refers not to contemporary data, but to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, including Christians from countries unknown to him even by name (abditarum - ignotarum - minus possumus). But what, besides phrases, can be said about unknown peoples? “Christianity has existed since yesterday, but it has filled everything,” says Tertullian. Let everything be filled with Christians, but in what quantity? It cannot be said that there were more Christians than “citizens”; This requires more accurate statistics. When Tertullian has to speak more than one phrase and indicate his own names, he uses the book of Acts and writes out the names of nationalities from the story of the day of Pentecost. In essence, he added little that was new: Armenia and Africa, where he himself lived. Thus, Tertullian takes the names of nationalities from everywhere, without checking whether there is definite data on the spread of Christianity among these nationalities. When talking about the number of Christians, he uses the expressions: “omnes”, “plures”, “universi”. But Tertullian himself corrects his hyperbole in Adversus Scapulam (Scapula was proconsul in Africa). In this message to Scapule, wanting to frighten him with many Christian victims, he declares (p. 5): if the proconsul initiates a persecution of Christians, he will have to kill about 1/10 of Carthage (“Carthago decimanda esset”). The number of Carthaginian Christians was, of course, well known to Tertullian, and he, of course, determines the maximum number of victims of successive persecution = 1/10 of Carthage: with this certainty the spectacular conclusion of Apologetics given above is resolved! Between 1/10 and the various “plures”, “omnes”, “universi” the distance is very large. An extremely serious corrective to Tertullian’s exaggerations is given by Origen in his interpretation of Chapter XXIV. 14th century Gospel of Matthew. The fact is that at that time there were people expecting the imminent coming of the Savior. Origen objected to their views with the proposition that before the coming of the Savior the gospel should be preached among all nations, but in his time it had not yet been preached among the Ethiopians, Chinese, British, Germans, Dacians, Sarmatians, and very many peoples had not yet heard the word of the gospel. Thus, Christianity in the 3rd century was not yet widespread, although it was preached in distant countries of the then universe. These are the results of the Christian mission of the 3rd century. 2) We then have special literature of an apocryphal nature, namely, various kinds of forged acts of the apostles. If we were to give confidence to these monuments, then we would have a living and complete picture of the spread of Christianity during the time of the apostles. But, unfortunately, this kind of literature has a unique origin and therefore cannot be accepted as an indisputable document. The study of these monuments belongs to the German scientist Lipsius. He reviewed all such apostolic acts and came to the conclusion that only a very small part of this literature came from the pens of Orthodox writers. In his opinion, only three monuments can be recognized as catholic: the Syrian monument - Doctrina Addaei, which reports the beginning of Christianity in Edessa, the acts of the apostles Simon and Judas and the acts of the apostle Matthew [Ethiopian legend]. Lipsius considers the acts of Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, the acts and martyrdom of Matthew, the acts of Thomas, Philip, Bartholomew, Paul and Thecla and Barnabas to be Gnostic works. Not all of them have survived in their entirety, many only in fragments in Greek and Latin and in oriental languages. As an ancient attempt to compile a general corpus, we may note the Latin collection attributed to Obadiah, the first bishop of Babylon: Historia certaminis apostolici, in 10 books [ed. Lazius, Basileae 1551]. It was allegedly compiled in Hebrew, then translated into Greek, Julius Africanus translated it into Latin; but this must be considered a fiction, since Julius wrote in Greek. In all likelihood, the Latin collection dates back to the times after Jerome and falls on the years 524-609; references to Holy Scripture are given in it according to the Vulgate. The compilers of the collection had monuments that were much more complete and better than those that have come down to us. The peculiar nature of these Gnostic works is explained by Gnostic aspirations. The Gnostics were aristocrats of thought, they were a church within a church, a state within a state, and, like any religious and philosophical society in general, they were no strangers to the desire for propaganda. The literary form of Gnostic works was the geographical novel, for this form ensured the success of the spread of ideas. Gnostic teaching was inserted into the story of the travels of the apostles. The choice of this form for disseminating his ideas was very successful: the story has an enticing interest for readers. Contemporary writer Jules Verne also uses a similar plot to popularize his scientific positions. Literature in the form of travel existed earlier among the Greeks. We find similar works in the Christian Catholic world. For example, the life of Macarius of Rome contains an absurd story about Macarius's journey to the east. Gnostic apocryphal works contain stories about adventures, terrible events, amazing miracles, etc. But the Gnostics put their content into such an entertaining form: the apostolic travelers in their novels preach the Gnostic teaching; in dangers and during miracles they turn to God with prayers, but again with a Gnostic character. Readers unconsciously became acquainted with gnosis in this way and assimilated its tendencies, which were fixed in their memory; prayers, often artistic and poetic, were learned by heart. So, very early on a whole series of works appeared to familiarize Catholic readers with the content of gnosis. Church teachers soon assessed the harm of such writing and declared it apocryphal, that is, one that cannot be read. But the censorship of that time was not as radical as ours. Our censorship extends to the book itself: it may not be allowed into the world. This was not the case in the ancient church; but the shepherds stood close to their flock, and one indication that something should not be read was enough. But such a prohibition did not quite achieve its goal: in the absence of publicity, it could not be known to all believers. The result of this was that Gnostic writing continued to be read by Catholics. And the censorship itself sometimes treated this phenomenon leniently, assuming that it would not bring much harm, because although these works have dogmatic errors, they are ethically impeccable. However, Gnostic works were still edited by Catholic writers; but their criticism was too one-sided. It extended only to dogmatic tendencies: Gnostic passages were crossed out, sermons and prayers were curtailed, while some of them were left intact. From well-known favorite words, however, one can guess the tendency of the work even after this correction; for example, the abundance of words in some prayers: “light”, “truth” clearly indicates their Gnostic origin. But as for the rest, except for the dogmatic, parts of the content of the apocryphal acts, the “diorphots” did not correct them; for example, they did not pay attention to the historical-narrative part at all, and they were not able to criticize it, since they were not prepared for this; so they left it as it was. From this point of view, it is clear that apocryphal sources of information about the spread of Christianity are subject to the strictest criticism. The Apocrypha was included in the contents of the collections used in the church: synaxarions, prologues, chetykh-mena, etc.; but this circumstance does not yet guarantee the sanction of the church of their origin and historical content. Thus, the question remains: can these legends be trusted? On the other hand: what means are there to determine their reliability? Answering the first of these questions, one can reason a priori like this: the narrative side was not the author’s goal, but only a means; therefore, he naturally did not pay due attention to her; Hence it is clear that apocrypha cannot have historical significance. But this opinion must be considered exaggerated: Gnostic writers were extremely interested in their readers believing them. First of all, of course, it was necessary that the reader should not doubt the story being told, and for this it was necessary that the outer shell should not contain anything incredible, that nothing implausible should be reported. The following situation can be considered probable: the Gnostic writers, if only they could, spoke the truth; They indicate historical names of the kings of the 1st century, their chronology is almost correct. So, regarding the apocrypha, the following fundamental position can be established: they contain valuable indications of the truth, representing the remnants of historical tradition. Consequently, the apocryphal acts of the apostles cannot be excluded a priori from among the sources for the history of the spread of Christianity. But our means for verifying the narrative side of these acts are not particularly rich. We have to pay attention to two aspects: a) the character (content) of what is being narrated and b) the character (degree of preparation) of the environment through which the story that has come down to us passed. In the first respect (a) the historical nature of what is being narrated is highly probable when the events conveyed are distinguished by naturalness, for example, aa) if the missionary routes run through areas prepared for the assimilation of Christianity - those where there was already Jewish colonization (h diaspora), and bb) if the preaching of the apostles is indicated in countries that at that time were in relations with the Greco-Roman world (then trade relations extended to India and Ceylon). In the second respect (b) one should not lose sight of the fact that aa) the ethnographic and geographical information of educated people in the first centuries of Christianity was rather weak; bb) the traditions of local churches were recorded at such a late time when the existence of this record can no longer serve as a guarantee that different types of tradition are not mixed. a) One of the most important means for verifying various apocryphal legends about the preaching of the apostles is comparison with what the canonical books of the New Testament tell about the apostolic preaching. From the Holy Scriptures we see that the apostolic preaching outside Palestine is directed to those places where the Jews of the dispersion lived. Ap. Paul, primarily the apostle of the tongues, chooses the houses of worship of the Jews as the starting point for his preaching and first of all addresses them as the most prepared listeners. It is more than likely that the other apostles practiced the same method in the work of Christian evangelism. Therefore, one must trust those messages where the apostles are presented as active in Jewish villages. For example, a message that app. Andrew was in Sinope, probably: there was a Jewish colony there. Sinop is mentioned in Talmudic literature, and from there came the notorious Aquila, a literalist translator of the Holy Scriptures into Greek. Thus, ap. Andrei preached on cultivated soil. To evaluate the above legends, it is also very important to take into account the normal paths along which the missionary activity of the apostles should have followed. For their missionary movements, the apostles, as we see from the Holy Scriptures, did not resort to a miracle: like ordinary people, they crossed seas, crossed mountains, were exposed to dangers, etc. Therefore, we must assume the natural course of the mission regarding all the apostles. When ap. Pavel travels, his movement is quite natural, sometimes by sea, sometimes by land. He encounters a lot of dangers from people and even the elements; freed from death as a vessel of God in a natural way. If he is tortured, he declares that he is a Roman citizen; if he is stoned, he faints; in a word, everything is natural. Therefore, one should not believe those apocryphal legends where the apostles are represented in miraculous images: flying through the air, etc. Thus, it is required that the legends have a natural basis. In some cases, what is reported has no analogy in the original Acts of the Apostles. But even in these cases, naturalness is a necessary sign of genuine tradition. Here we need to keep in mind the difference in the environment in which the sermon was preached. Ap. Paul moved on Roman territory, while the other apostles preached on its outskirts and even beyond its borders. When determining the place of their activity, you can stumble upon news that, apparently, destroys each other. According to one story, the sermon of Simon the Zealot was heard in Persia, hence I.V. Cheltsov [History of the Christian Church. T. I. 1861. St. Petersburg. 83–84] concluded that this story is of Western origin; according to another story, he was in Britain; hence the conclusion that this story is of Eastern origin. Eastern writers say something like this: these apostles preached not here, but far away somewhere in the west, and Western writers say the same thing: not here, but in the east. Both of them, thus, tried to push the preaching of the apostles to the most extreme points. Apparently, such evidence should be declared invalid due to its contradiction. In fact, they are quite reconcilable. The fact is that the path of the apostles was a path of trade relations, which extended on the one hand to China and Ceylon, and on the other to the islands of Britain and to the semi-wild countries of Africa. Caravans moved along this route, always accompanied by armed forces to protect them from enemies, robbers and various dangers. In view of this, naturally, every private person had to join the caravan to avoid all dangers. Trade was barter. Merchants of the Greco-Roman Empire traded their goods in the east for resin, perfume and gold, and then went to the other end and sold new goods there. Hence it is not incredible that the apostles are represented for a short period of time preaching in China, Ceylon and Britain; together with caravans, they were forced to constantly move from one country to another. b) Another question is whether non-direct witnesses could accurately convey information about the activities of the apostles. This question significantly reduces the credit of those literary historical works in which the above information is reported. At present, even intelligent society does not know cities and villages and even entire remote countries; in the 1st and 2nd centuries, geographical knowledge was completely pathetic. If a modern intelligent person is taken by surprise, for example, by a telegram about the success of some mission, then only a few do not feel the need to turn to a special geographical atlas for an indication of where the mission operates. But we, of course, cannot assume that the geographical knowledge of the Greeks was superior to ours. On the contrary, they were dark and confused, especially in relation to the so-called barbarian world. This will become even more obvious if we take into account that the Greeks were not at all partial to ethnographic research about the barbarian peoples, and, despite the fact that the barbarians succeeded each other, the Greek intellectuals stubbornly continued to give the new nationalities the names they had read from their authorities, Herodotus and Strabo. So, for example, they called the Russians “Tauroscythians,” and the countries somewhat north of the Black Sea coast were generally “Hyperborean” countries for them. The Greeks equally called all those nationalities that lived in the space of present-day Russia “Scythians,” without understanding the fact that nationalities of the most diverse shades collided here. The same vagueness and confusion of concepts existed among the Greeks regarding Ethiopia and India. The geographical terms "Ethiopia" and "India" appear quite often in apocryphal literature. But the use of these names is only a motive for distorting the tradition about the spread of Christianity. Apparently, what could be more specific than the term “Ethiopia”? We now associate with him the idea of ​​a country in Africa, where Abyssinia is now approximately. Meanwhile, this term does not have such a specific meaning. Its origin is connected with the Rhodian colonization, and it was not strictly geographical. Homer mentions aiqiopeV, eternally happy people. Ethiopia is a country lying somewhere to the south, it lies where the god Ilios stands at the zenith (hlioV aiqwn), where eternally happy and pious people live, making abundant sacrifices to the gods. Then, as geographical knowledge develops, Ethiopia gradually moves further and further to the south; under this name they began (on philological grounds) to mean the country in which people live with a dark complexion (aiqiopeV), made so by the sun. Closer to classical times, this name was used to designate a country that was located in the south of Egypt, on the site of present-day Nubia. And when the southern border of Egypt became known under its precise ethnographic terms (as the Meroitic kingdom, as the land of the Nubs), Ethiopia moved even further to the south, to Sudan (“Sudan”, pluralis of the Arabic language, means exactly the same as aiqiopeV, i.e. “blacks”). In the Greek translation of the Bible, the term "Ethiopia" is used to render the Hebrew "Cush". And it is not known where Ethiopia would have been driven if a people had not been found who adopted the name of Ethiopians, and it had not become generally clear that aiqiopeV are the present-day Abyssinians, the ancient Agazians. Having become Christians, they grouped together and adopted the name Ethiopians, artificially identifying themselves with those Ethiopians who are mentioned in the Bible. They also formed a legend that the Queen of Sheba (of the south), who visited Solomon, was their queen, and they even began to consider their dynasty as the offspring of Solomon. From this movement of the concept of “Ethiopia” it is clear how we should relate to those testimonies that speak of the apostolic preaching in Ethiopia. The same story happened with India, although the concept “India” is definite, and “Ethiopia” is only a common noun, as can be seen from what has just been said. The name “India” owes its appearance to the relations between the Greeks and the Persians. Next to the Persians, beyond the Himalayan mountains, lived the Hindu tribe Sindhu. The Persians, by the nature of their language (according to phonetic laws, the Sanskrit “s” among the Persians, as the peoples of the Iranian tribe, turns into “h”), called it “Hindu” and contrasted it with themselves by its dark complexion. The Greeks borrowed this name from the Persians, changing it to “oi Indoi”. So India originally meant a specific place on the globe. But over time, this name lost its original, precise ethnographic meaning. The Persians themselves distorted it. The "Sindhu" were distinguished from the white-faced Persians by their relatively dark skin color and were given the name "Hindu". But the Persians began to call this name not only the “Sindu” tribe, but also other peoples (to the west and east) who had a darker skin color than what they had. The concept of “India” expanded so that India was sought both on the Arabian Peninsula and on the shores of Africa, so that others called the territory of the Ethiopians India; They looked for India, and then in the Caucasus, where the “oi Sindoi” tribe once lived. Thus, for Greek writers of the 2nd-5th centuries. According to R. X., there was a great multitude of both India and Ethiopia. India and Ethiopia were the same loose names as our common “Arap”. If, therefore, the apostle’s companions told anyone among the educated about their travels, then even in this case the geographical names did not evoke a definite idea of ​​​​the area. If the happy memory of the ancients could retain geographical terms, then other listeners, even with the exact transfer of terms, could mistakenly localize the area. Thus, the environment itself was unfavorable for the correct understanding of the terms. To verify such testimonies of the apostolic preaching, written in such (vague) geographical terms, one must, of course, turn to the traditions of private churches. But even here there are many very serious perplexities and difficulties. Local tradition, of course, could be an excellent means of verifying apocryphal tales; but few legends about the apostolic journeys are written down. And then, next to the Holy Tradition, which has a certain value for us, we must also distinguish between 1) historical tradition and 2) scientific tradition. Historical legend, without having the value of the sacred, is passed down historically from generation to generation. So, for example, it was transmitted that Dorpat used to be called Yuryev, and then this legend broke out and the city again began to be called Yuryev. Next to such a tradition, one must also distinguish, as we said, scientific tradition. It happens this way. A learned man reads a book and, for the greater glory of his homeland, draws some flattering conclusion from what he read. He then spreads this view in his area. People recognize the conclusion, remember it and pass it on to their descendants. This phenomenon can be called secunda genitura. This is how a view can emerge that is a conclusion and not a historical tradition. We probably encounter a similar phenomenon when we talk about the presence of the apostle. Peter's in Rome. Ap. Peter preached in Rome and died there, but the conclusion emerged that he was also a bishop there, and this secondary conclusion became the subject of dissemination among learned people. Or another example. Between the city of Torzhok in the Tver province, where the relics of Euphrosyne rest, and the city of Ostashkov, not far from which Nilova Hermitage is located, lies the Mogilev Assumption Hermitage. The median distance of this monastery between the first two tempted some to conclude that the Mogilev Assumption Hermitage was built on the place to which the saints accompanied each other after one of them came to visit the other. Perhaps this legend would seem to have some probability if chronology did not interfere: these saints were not contemporaries. Obviously, the difference in the authority of the preserved tradition and the inferred tradition is significant, and sometimes it is not possible to distinguish between the two, since the local tradition was written down very late. For example, the Abyssins called themselves Ethiopians in order to appear through this name as the people spoken of in the Holy Scriptures. This later identification of the biblical “kush” with “gyyz” obviously cannot be authoritative for biblical ethnography. Another specific case. Acts of the Ap. Andrew in the Orthodox edition were preserved in the work of the presbyter and monk Epiphanius, written around 830; that means, 8 centuries after the activity of the apostle. But Epiphanius’s work is not apocryphal; it is one of the best biographies of the apostle. Andrew, and his writer traveled a lot, saw the prayer house of St. Andrew and the miraculous icon written on marble (eukthrion tou agiou Andreou – kai eikona tou agiou Andreou eiV marmaron ulograjoumenhn). The 70-year-old presbyter of Sinope, Theophan, told him that under Copronymus (741–775) the iconoclasts could not destroy this icon even with fire. It is he (Epiphanius) who testifies that the ap. Andrew preached in Sinope. To prove this, he points out that in the 8th and 9th centuries. in Sinope there was a church and an icon of St. Andrey. This is true; but the further message, “oti eti ontoV tou apostolou h eikwn egrajh” [(that) the image was painted when the apostle was], is only a bold conclusion, for the validity of which neither the existence of the church nor the icon can vouch. Further, the assumption arises that the church itself did not appear only because the ancient inhabitants of Sinop learned that the ap. Andrew preached in Sinope, this opinion spread and a church was built in honor of the apostle. So, here we may be dealing with a later local legend, not with reliability. That in general later legends are not always trustworthy, this can be seen from the following. If information about anything could be particularly stable, then, of course, first of all, about the place of the martyrdom of the apostles. The legend about the place of their burial could be firmly preserved by relying on such a material monument as the tomb of the apostle. However, even in this regard, the legends disagree with each other, and sometimes it is possible to agree between them only under the condition of the assumption that the apostles preached in one place and were buried in another place. For example, app. According to some reports, Bartholomew died a) in India, and according to others b) in the city of Urvanopol - Korvanopol - Alvanopol, in great Armenia. There is obviously an interpretation here. The first message - about India - is exaggerated: the apostle preached there, but did not die. About Thaddeus, one legend says that he died a) in Phoenician Virita, and another - b) in Ostrakina, an Egyptian city, the third - c) in Armenia a) internal, b) in the Dzofk region (Tzojanhnh in IV Armenia), y) in the Artaz region (according to Moses Kagankatvatsi). Moreover, according to the first legend (a) he died peacefully, according to the other two (bc) he died a martyr’s death. Obviously, such messages are fundamentally undermined. Ap. Judas (= Thaddeus Levveus the Zealot), according to some legends, died and was buried in Virita; to girlfriends (= Thaddeus Levvey) – in Ostrakin or in inner Armenia; according to some (= Judah Jacob) - in Edessa. But the stories about the place of death of the apostle especially diverge. Simon the Zealot; then he died a) in Syrian Epiphania, then b) in Cyrrhus, which is near the Euphrates, then c) in Persia, then d) in northern Colchis (between Suani), then e) in Iberia (Georgia), then f) in Britain, then, finally, g) in Jerusalem (mixed with Simon Cleopas). The place of death of the apostle and evangelist Matthew is determined either a) in Gabala in Syria or in Vivla in Phoenicia, then b) in Hierapolis in Syria, then c) in Naddaver (in Abyssinia?). That this variety of legends stands in connection with the difficult exegetical task of reconciling Matthew 10:3 with Luke 6:16 is clear, but the disagreement of such legends does not cease to be a fact. 2. The spread of Christianity in the East Missionary activity of the apostles within the Ponto-Bosporan kingdom, Asia Minor and Parthia (in the broad sense). Christianity in Edessa Given this nature of the legends about the preaching of the apostles, it is necessary not to be guided by them when presenting the history of the spread of Christianity, but to look for a guiding thread from others in order to understand the labyrinth of legends about the apostles and choose from these apocrypha the one that seems most stable. Such a guiding star can serve as the testimony of Origen, placed at the beginning of the third book of the history of Eusebius: “Thomas received Parthia as an inheritance for preaching, Andrew - Scythia, John - Asia, where he died in Ephesus; and Peter, in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia, preached the diaspora to the Jews and, finally, arriving in Rome, was crucified upside down.” The main current of apocryphal literature agrees with this general indication, dividing the apostles into several groups according to the areas of their activity. There are three groups. A) Asian group, which includes, according to apocryphal legends, John and Philip; ap. James is excluded from this group because the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12:2) speaks of his death in Jerusalem; AP is also not included in this group. Jacob Alfeev, since he was the bishop of Jerusalem. B) Pontic group: Peter, his brother Andrew, Bartholomew and Matthew. C) Parthian group, where the apocrypha places Thomas, Simon the Zealot, Judas Jacob, identical with the ap. Levveem and with ap. Thaddeus. This division of the apostles into groups coincides with the guidelines of Origen. Ap. Peter, in accordance with the instructions and in his letter, preached in Pontus, where the apostle could unite with him. Andrew, who, according to Origen, preached in Scythia; Thomas is at the head of the Parthian group, John - the Asiatic. II. Asiatic group (Roman Empire)3. 2.(3. Z.Jacob + outside the group in view of Acts 12:2)4. 3. 4. 2. John5. 5. 5. 5. Philip I. Pontic group (vosporan kingdom)1. 1. 1. 1. Peter2. 4. 2. 4. Andrey6. 6. 6. 7. Bartholomew8. 7. 7. 8. Matthew 9. 9. 9. 9. Jacob Alfeev outside the group, as “adeljoqeoV, first bishop of Jerusalem”) III. Parthian group (the Parthian Arsacid dynasty reigns in Persia and Armenia, holds Mesopotamia in its dependence, and dominates in the east to the borders of India). 7. 8. 8. 6. Thomas11.11. 10. 10. Simon the Zealot „ „ 11.11 Judas Jacob, usually recognized as identical with 10.10. „ „ Thaddeus Lebbeus (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18). This division into groups corresponds in part to the political division of that time. 1) The region of the first group, the Ponto-Bosporan kingdom, was at that time undergoing disintegration; in parts it was already adjacent to the Roman Empire, but nevertheless the legend of its independent existence was still alive; one of its kings, Polemon II (temporarily a Jewish proselyte), even appears under the name Polymius in the acts of St. Bartholomew. The area of ​​activity of this northern group is outlined in 1 Peter 1:1 (“eklektoiV parepidhmoiV diasporaV Pontou GalatiaV KappadokiaV AsiaV kai BiquniaV”) and noted in the above words of Origen (“Andrew - Scythia”). The center of activity of the ap. According to the acts, Andrei was the city of Sinop. The historicity of this news is evidenced by the important fact that there was a very significant Jewish colony here; Sinope is mentioned in Talmudic literature; one of the translators of the Holy Scriptures, Aquila, was from Sinop. The entire sermon of the apostle was kept around this center. Andrew the First-Called, namely: along the shores of the Black Sea - along the northern coast. Apocryphal acts put him in contact with one or the other apostle. It is indisputably known that the ap. Andrew preached within Scythia, as Origen also says. But where to look for Scythia? The oldest news suggests Great Scythia; we read that he preached in Scythia, Sogdiana and the Saks. Then, in the further development of the Scythian legends, they began to look closer to the Roman Empire, along the eastern shores of the Black Sea, namely, the activities of the apostle. Andrei is localized near Sevastopol the Great (near present-day Poti). Next, according to legend, live the “Ethiopians”; this name is applied to all barbarian peoples. According to Epiphanius the monk, the apostle also reached the Crimea. Place of activity Andrei is indicated in Thrace as “en QrakaiV”, but, in all likelihood, the latter name came from an oversight and confusion with “SakaiV”. In 357, Emperor Constantius transferred the relics of St. Andrew to Constantinople, to the Church of St. Apostles. The relics were transferred here from the city of Patras in Achaia. Thus, the place of death of the ap. Andrei, according to this information, is the city of Patras. But if later legends direct him to Achaia, then among the Caucasian peoples there were then some Achaeans and it was easy to identify them with the inhabitants of Achaia and, thus, carry the apostle’s preaching to Europe. In parallel with the Apostle Andrew, the evangelists Matthew and Bartholomew preached. Already according to Eusebius (V, 10:3), Bartholomew preached “to the Indians and left them the Gospel of Matthew.” "Indus", like the "Ethiopians", whom the ap. Bartholomew could have met in the Bosporan kingdom, there was a tribe, "oi Sindoi", living south of the mouth of the Kuban. But here we mean Indians in the proper sense. These were the “lucky Indians,” the inhabitants of Arabia. It was to them that the ap. left. Bartholomew Gospel of Matthew in Syriac. Although Arabs lived in happy Arabia, the Arabic language was not a literary language at that time, and the northern tribes of Arabia, who also lived beyond the Jordan, wrote and spoke Aramaic on ceremonial occasions. Consequently, the Syriac language could not be more incomprehensible here than Latin in the Middle Ages in Europe, so the apostle could have left the Gospel in Syriac. The circle of activities of the ap. Bartholomew is planned even further to the east. Tradition represents that he preached first in Albania, sometimes in Armenia, where he died. There is disagreement regarding the city in which the apostle died: according to some it was the city of Alvanopol, according to others it was Urvanopol or Corvanopol. Urvanopol is identified (Gutschmid) with the Armenian capital “Erovandashat” (at the confluence of the Arpachay River in Arak). But if we assume that the legend is about the death of St. Bartholomew passed through a Syrian source and the word “Corvanopolis” the name is correct and comes from the Syriac “qurbana” = sacrifice, then it can be assumed that the place of the martyrdom of the apostle was one of the Armenian cities - Ashtishat (in Taron) (Ashti-shat means “city of sacrifices”). II) The stories about the activities of the apostles in Asia Minor (the second group - in the Roman Empire) rest on a more historical basis. It is firmly attested to by church traditions. “Philip, one of the 12 apostles, who died in Hierapolis” (Phrygian) and “John, who died in Ephesus” are referred to in 191 by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (Euseb. V, 24, 2. 3). III) Apostles Thomas, Thaddeus and Simon the Canaanite (third group) acted further south, in Parthia. The reference to the latter must be understood in the broadest sense. At that time, the Parthian dynasty reigned in Persia, as in Armenia, and Mesopotamia was under the rule of the Persian Arsacids. Thus, the concept of Parthia is very flexible. Apostle Thomas, according to legend, is preaching in the city of Edessa (according to Euseb. I, 13, 4. 10; II, 1.6 - sends Thaddeus to Edessa), but he seems primarily to be the apostle of India, a tradition about which dates back to the time of Ephraim the Syrian. The so-called carmina Nisibena testify that at the end of the 4th century, within the boundaries of Edessa and Syria, a legend was preserved that the ap. Thomas died in India and that his relics were later transferred to Edessa. Thus, this legend takes Thomas very far and places him on the very edge of Parthia. Thaddeus is actually the apostle of Mesopotamia; His name is associated with the idea of ​​​​the spread of Christianity in Edessa. This legend deserves special attention for many details. The early spread of Christianity in Mesopotamia in general and in Edessa in particular is quite understandable. Babylon, as a city, at the time of the apostolic preaching was only a historical memory, but it had high significance for the Jews, as a very prominent Jewish colony, as proof of which it is enough to recall that among modern Jews the Babylonian Talmud is in use (and has been preserved more completely than the Jerusalem one). Consequently, Mesopotamia, through the Jewish dispersion, was prepared for the adoption of Christianity. Preaching in Mesopotamia was facilitated by the unity of language (though not dialect). The apostles spoke in the Syro-Palestinian dialect (a type of Syriac or Aramaic), therefore it is natural that the Babylonian church appears very early; still up. Peter sends greetings to the believers from this church, co-chosen in Babylon, and there is no reason to insist on an allegorical understanding of this reference to Babylon (Babylon = Rome). To the north of Babylon lies the city of Urhoj (Edessa of the Greeks), which gave its name to the entire region (Osrohnh = Orrohnh). Edessa can be considered the cultural center of the entire Aramaic people. The Aramaic language, known to everyone under the name Syriac, is actually the Edessa dialect, just as the Russian literary language is actually the Moscow dialect. Therefore, Christian preaching in Edessa had to begin very early. The legend that the ruler of Edessa, Abgar V the Black, sent Jesus Christ a letter in which he asked Him to come to heal him of his illness, can find a point of contact with the gospel story in the words of John 12:20-24 that the Greeks came to Christ. In its oldest form (Christ’s answer to Abgar without the promise that “no enemy will take possession of Edessa forever”) this legend is read in Euseb. h. e. 1, 13; but even in this form, Christ’s answer is exposed in its unhistorical nature by the fact that Christ refers to the words of the Gospel John 20:29 as “what is written about Him.” The Western Church (Decretum Gelasii 492–496) viewed the messages of both Abgar and Christ as apocryphal. But there is no reason to reject with form the very basis of the legend - the fact of relations between the Edessa ruler and Christ and the possibility of Christ’s promise to send one of the apostles to Edessa to preach. In its most common form, the legend is read in a Syrian monument from the end of the 4th century, so-called. Doctrine Addaei. Here Christ’s answer ends with His blessing to Edessa and the prediction that no enemy will take this city. Obviously, the legend could have appeared when in Edessa they forgot that when Abgar VII bar-Izat (November 109 - August 116) rebelled against the Romans, Trajan's commander Lusius Quietus (in 116) took Edessa by storm and burned it. In any case, it must be admitted that there were special incentives for one of the apostles to choose Edessa as the center of his activities. But no matter how great the internal grounds for the reliability of the tradition about the apostolic origin of the church in Edessa, the tradition about this (in the Doctrina Addaei and the martyrdoms of Sharbil and Barsamya) has come to us in a form that undermines its reliability. Here is a list of the bishops of Edessa: 1) Haggai, installed by Addaeus (distorted by Thaddeus) and suffered by the son of Abgar (c. 51). His immediate successor is 2) Palut, ordained bishop by Serapion of Antioch (190–210), a contemporary of Zephyrinus of Rome (198–217). His successor was Deacon Addea - 3) Abshelam, whom Palut himself appointed as a bishop. His successor is 4) Barsamya, who was a cleric under Addaeus and ordained bishop by Abshelamoy. Barsamya converted to Christ the main pagan priest Sharbil, who suffered in Edessa during the persecution of Trajan (between 105–112) (which, according to acts, was at that time ruled by Prince Abgar VII bar-Izat, November 109 – August 116). Sharbil was killed on the main pagan altar that still existed in Edessa. Bishop Barsamya himself, a contemporary of Fabian of Rome (236–250), was a confessor during this persecution under Trajan (98–117). To understand one of the reasons for this chronological confusion, one must keep in mind that in Edessa there were many princes who bore the same name. Yes Abgar V bar-Manu Ukkama (= Abgar the Great), 14th Prince of Edessa (13–50 AD); Abgar VII bar-Izat (20) (from November 109 – August 116); Lucius Aelius Septimius Abgarus IX bar Manu (also called the great: MegaV AbgaroV) (191–214); and - after the removal of Abgar IX - his youngest son ruled under the guise of co-government with him - North Abgar X bar-Abgar (28) (from September 214 to April 216), when imp. Antoninus Caracalla captured Edessa, annexed Osroina as a province to the Roman Empire and thereby put an end to the existence of the Edessa kingdom. The eldest son of Abgar IX, princeps Antonin Manu IX bar-Abgar was considered, however, (by Edessa legitimists?) the titular king of Edessa in 216–242. In the Syrian chronicle of Edessa there is news that in November 201 there was a severe flood in Edessa, during which the water destroyed the palace of Abgar the Great (= V) and severely damaged the Christian church. This event is described in the official chronicle, so we must conclude that by this time Edessa was a Christian city. The ruler of Edessa (basileuV) at this time (191-August 214) was Lucius Aelius Septimius Abgar IX bar-Manu the great, who undoubtedly accepted Christianity, as evidenced by Julius Africanus, who knew him as a pious man (ieron andra), and Bar-Daizan (Vardesan) of Edessa, who was on friendly terms with him, as with “andri osiwtatw” kai logiwtatw" ("a holy and learned man"). He knew Africanus well and Manu (IX), the son of King Abgar IX. In view of all that has been said, there is no doubt that at the end of the 2nd or beginning of the 3rd century Christianity in Edessa was the state religion. From here it is easy to understand in what sense Palut, by whose name even in the days of Ephraim the Syrian the heretics called the Orthodox Palutians, left a memory of himself as the first bishop of Edessa: Palut was indeed the first bishop recognized by state power. Hence the wide opportunity for convening councils in Osroin at this time. But, on the other hand, it is also easy to explain that in the Edessa legend the features of Abgar V and Abgar IX were mixed. The one and the other Abgar c) bore the name of the great and d) in their own way, each one laid the beginning (resp. was at the beginning) of the spread of Christianity in Osroin. In turn, Severus Abgar X, son of Abgar IX, may not have been a Christian and undoubtedly declared himself with terrible cruelties from the very beginning of his tyrannical rule, which made it easier for Caracalla to capture Edessa. And the Syrian monuments say that the apostate from Christianity, the son of Abgar, Severus, put both Haggai and even Addeus (= Thaddeus) to cruel death. Finally, the detail (Syro-Armenian version) that the ap. Addaeus = Thaddeus preached Christianity not only in Edessa, but also in NisibiV and Mbusila (on the site of ancient Nineveh) and Armenia, and suffered in Armenia from the Armenian sovereign Sanatruk - is in harmony with the fact that in 91-109. Edessa did not have its own sovereign and was dependent on the Adiavin (with residence in Nisivin) prince - perhaps of Armenian origin. This could be favorable for missionary activity (through Edessa) in Armenia. In any case, as soon as Christianity became a firm foothold in Edessa, the possibility of preaching it in Nisivin, Armenia and the southern regions of the Caucasus obviously opened up. This makes it possible to trust the legend that Simon the Canaanite acted in the Caucasus. Since the Jewish diaspora extended to Armenia and Iberia, the spread of Christianity in them was very possible. But these attempts to spread Christianity in the Caucasus stalled. The spread of Christianity in Parthia itself is spoken of in the acts of St. Thomas (his sermon in Aria, Drangian and Arachosia). King Gundafor, mentioned in these acts, came from the Parthian dynasty and reigned in the named countries from 7–29. according to R.H. But the religious movement that was there at that time was, it seems, Buddhist. Christianity in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis The spread of Christianity within the Syriac language seems natural due to the proximity of Palestine, the historical relations of the Jews to Mesopotamia and the unity of the language. Egypt has long been a region with which Jewish relations never ceased. Even in the time of Solomon, persons who compromised themselves politically retired to Egypt (2 Chron. 10:2). Further colonization in Egypt under the Ptolemies led to the formation of a Jewish community here (Church of Onias). Here the translation of the sacred books into Greek was completed, a translation known as the LXX translation; here the holy family finds refuge from the persecution of Herod. It is natural, therefore, to assume that Christianity spread very early in Egypt. Evangelist Mark [according to his acts, which, in general, represents a monument of high reliability] died as a martyr in Alexandria (April 4, 63). One can even raise the question whether the ap. Peter in Egypt, because the co-elected church in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13) could be the church in Egyptian Babylon (on the site of present-day Mácpy-l-atik = old Cairo). Mark's acts contain features that make the beginning of the preaching of Christianity in Alexandria quite natural. Ev. Mark, walking through Alexandria, tore his shoe and went to the first shoemaker he met to have it repaired. During repairs, the shoemaker Annian pricked his finger and at the same time involuntarily exclaimed: “eiV QeoV” (“one God!”), which served as a convenient reason for the apostle to begin his sermon. The naturalness of the incident encourages us to think that we are standing on the basis of a living historical memory. This AnnianoV was the first successor of the evangelist at the Alexandrian see. Christianity here was primarily established between Jews and people who spoke Greek (in any case, at first we do not see persons with Coptic names in the episcopal sees). This is natural, because the Roman government, of which Egypt was a province, patronized people who accepted Roman culture and was distrustful of everything that echoed ancient Egyptian culture. The history of Egypt was too ancient to suggest that the Egyptians would succumb to new Greek and Roman influences. Both the Ptolemies and their successors must have experienced distrust among the local population. The Coptic population paid with the hatred of their metropolis, and the Alexandrians had a bad reputation among the natural Egyptians. This was an obstacle to the spread of Christianity among the Egyptian natives, which began in Egypt among the people of the Greek language, which is confirmed by evidence of the strength of paganism in Egypt even in the 5th century (the struggle of Abba Shenuti with the Thebaid pagans before 450). It must then be taken into account that the entire south of Egypt bordered on barbarian peoples, maintaining peaceful relations with whom was one of the most difficult political tasks of the Egyptian administrators, and that this task was, to a certain extent, resolved by the fact that the “barbarians” took oaths before the pagan gods (Osiris, Isis, etc.), whom these oi te blemmueV kai oi nobatai (“blemies and Nobats" - Ethiopian tribes); therefore, it was considered political to spare paganism in the south of Egypt, so that the blow dealt to polytheism would not destroy all political results in relation to the Blemmians and Nubians. And the pagan temple on the island of Philae (Fialai), the sacred place of these treaties, continued to prosper until the 6th century, until, finally, Justinian I ordered its destruction and the arrest of all its priests. From the north of Egypt, Christianity moved slowly up the Nile, but, in any case, it moved so successfully that under Septimius Severus (202) there were confessors of Christianity in Thebaid, and this is an area that was inhabited entirely by Copts. Consequently, Christianity penetrated into this layer of the Egyptian population. But the conditions for the spread of Christianity here were quite unique, and perhaps in no other area was it assimilated with such a layering of a foreign element as in Egypt. The Egyptian (Coptic) Hamitic language is far from being related to Indo-Germanic Greek, but was subjected to strong pressure from the developed syntax of the latter. Copts borrowed not only Greek words (names, verbs), but also Greek particles (like epeidh, palin, de). Thus, the very structure of the Coptic language was adapted to the Greek language. The Coptic language was lexically national to such an extent and imbued with religious views that the creators of Christian writing in the Coptic language found it difficult to convey Christian concepts in Coptic words, because Egyptian ideas were combined with them. Apparently there was no attempt to translate such names as CristoV, TriaV into Coptic; the concepts of pneuma and yuch were conveyed by the same Greek words (the Coptic pi-niqi pi-nifi - breath, spirit, apparently, was too reminiscent of the god Knef). Next to the Coptic uav = holy, the Greek agioV is very often found: the Coptic word lexically meant “cleanly washed”; hence “priest” = uiv was written hieroglyphically in the form of a man stretching out his hands to wash himself to the water that pours from a jug located above him. The Coptic population had to become acquainted with Christianity through worship performed in Greek; the translation of liturgical rites into the Coptic language apparently took place when Coptic Christians were already partially familiar with the Greek language from liturgical practice. Therefore, some parts of the service are left without translation (exclamations “Kurie elehson”, “staqhte meta jobou Qeou akouswmen tou agiou euaggeliou”, “doxa soi, Kurie”, “proseuxasqe uper thV eirhnhV thV monhV kaqolikhV kai apostolikhV orqoqoxou tou Qeou ekklhsias", "proseuxasqe uper tou arcierewV hmwn (nim = name) papa kai patriarcou kuriou, arciepiskopou thV megalhV polewV AlexandreiaV, kai twn orqodoxwn hmwn episkopwn", "eirhnh pasin", "kai tw pneumati sou", "aspazesqe allhlouV en jilhmati agiw", and most of the further exclamations and answers from Canon missae). In the second half of the 3rd century, there was already a translation of the New Testament into Coptic. Anthony (251–356), being 18 years old, began his ascetic deeds: he, a Central Egyptian native who did not speak Greek, while reading the Gospel was strongly impressed by the words of the Savior: “If you want to be perfect...” (Matthew 19:21), which he literally understood and fulfilled. Consequently, these words were read in Coptic. Simultaneously with Egypt, Christianization apparently began in other areas united with Egypt politically - in Libya and Pentapolis, to the west of Egypt. They were separated from Egypt by a narrow strip of sandy land, so that relations between them and Egypt were constant. The legend about the death of Mark in Alexandria says that he retired to preach in Libya and died upon his return from it. It is therefore quite possible that Libya was enlightened from the very beginning of the Christian era. The Gospel (Mark 15:21) mentions Simon of Cyrene (in Libya), the father of Alexander and Rufus; these latter were obviously well known to the original readers of Mark's Gospel, if he mentions them. After the rapid spread of Christianity in the apostolic and post-apostolic ages, a period of either its stable preservation or reduction begins. In any case, it must be assumed that it will be reduced on the northern shores of the Black Sea, in the Caucasus, in Armenia, and perhaps in other places where the seed of Christianity was planted by the apostles and barely maintained its existence. But in places adjacent to those countries in which Christianity was firmly planted, it was preserved and spread more and more. This was the case in the Persian state. This area was in contact with Christian Mesopotamia (Syria); The Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids ruled in Persia, which was not of Persian origin, and therefore did not particularly care about the prosperity of the national Persian language and religion. The most common language here was Aramaic. This language was then the same as French is now in the diplomatic relations of European states. Thanks to the Aramaic language and lively relations between Syria and Persia, in the latter and further to the east Christianity could be constantly maintained and spread. Regarding the spread of Christianity in Persia, conclusions can be drawn from one piece of news, very peculiar. It is reported, apparently, by one of the adherents of Bahram VI Chobin, the Persian usurper king 590–591. According to this news, Ardashir (Artakhshir) I, the founder of the Sasanian dynasty, who overthrew the Parthian Arsacid dynasty in 226, and his vizier Abarsam were very inclined to accept Christianity (and declare it the state religion of Persia?), and only the opposition of the army prevented them from realizing this intention. Ardashir I was of purely Persian noble origin. The accession of the Sassanians was a triumph of Persian nationality and, at the same time, of the Persian religion. The Sasanians looked at the latter as one of the essential supports of their throne, and - in its supposed interests - they launched persecutions against Persian Christians - persecutions that were not heard of under the Arsacids. It is clear that Chobin’s supporters, spreading such rumors about the founder of the Sasanian dynasty, thereby wanted to discredit the reigning Sasanian dynasty in the eyes of the priestly class. However, this rumor, in addition to trends, could also be based on historical facts. Raising the banner of rebellion against the Arsacids, Ardashir needed people loyal to him. He had no particular reason to count on the Persian priestly class. The Arsacid Parthians, if they were not particularly zealous patrons of the Persian religion, then, in any case, did not oppress it, and the priests could be satisfied with their present. On the other hand, the recognition of Christianity as the state religion in the neighboring Osroin kingdom in 226 was still a fresh fact, which could also provoke imitation. And if so, then we must assume that Christians in Persia already represented a prominent social force if Ardashir I Pabakan could dream of the role of Constantine the Great. During the time of the apostles, it was possible for Christianity to spread to Arabia. Relations between Syria and Arabia were quite close, especially since they were located not far from each other. Over time, a Roman province was formed here with the main city of Bozra, which contributed to the stability of Christianity. The latter was supported through relations with Alexandria (many Arabs lived in Egypt on the eastern bank of the Nile). There is news that in the 3rd century. A council was convened here, at which Origen was also present, on the issue of the (monarchian) teaching of Bishop Viril of Botsria. Origen managed to defeat Viril, and the latter repented and accepted Catholic teaching. This fact indicates that Christianity spread early in Arabia (cf. also Gal. 1:17; Acts 2:10). There is evidence from Eusebius about the spread of Christianity in the south of Arabia (V, 10, 2.3). Clement's predecessor in the rank of Alexandrian catechist, Panten, preached Christianity in India and found the Gospel of Matthew among the Christians there, because the apostle had already preached in India. Bartholomew left this Gospel “written in Hebrew” (that is, in Syriac) to Christians. One might think that India here means happy Arabia, or Yemen. This would indicate the movement of Christianity to the south; but, unfortunately, there is news that in southern Arabia Christianity was not known among the Sabeans and Homerites, and that the Jews here raised their heads high. In any case, the solid mass of the local population by the 4th century. remained pagan. News about the further position of Christianity in this country (in the period after Constantine the Great) is gleaned from the history of Theophilus Indus. He came from a noble family and as a boy was sent to Constantinople as a hostage. The place of his birth was the island of Divo (epi thn Dibou nhson), by which one should mean not Sielebida = Ceylon, but (since the area in which Theophilus traveled lies adjacent to the Red Sea) one of the closest to the African coast (Theophilus is called not only o indoV, but also aiqiwy and blemmuV) - if not Dahlak (near Massawa), then h Dioskoridou nhsoV = Diou Sokotora, i.e. Sokotora. Brought up at the court of the emperor, Theophilus adopted Arian views. Eusebius of Nicomedia ordained him to the rank of deacon. Around 350, under Emperor Constantius, he was entrusted with a diplomatic mission - to establish peaceful relations with the Omirites (Himyar). Sent at the head of the embassy, ​​with generous gifts, he was obliged, among other things, to obtain permission to build a church with Roman funds. Arriving at the place, Theophilus, according to the story of the Arian historian Philostorgius, made such an impression with his holiness and miracles that the Jews were put to shame and the king bowed to Christianity, refused Roman gifts and decided to build three churches at his own expense: in Tafar (Tajaron, the capital), in Adanh (Aden) and in Persikon emporion (Hurmuz). Thus, Christian centers appeared in the main areas of Himyar, and traveling Roman merchants could now have Christian edification. Perhaps these rays of Christianity in Arabia were the first to be here. Further, according to Philostorgius, Theophilus went to his homeland and found that Christianity continued to exist here and that it was completely Orthodox (= from an Arian point of view). The only thing he found bad here were some ungodly customs, for example, the custom of listening to the Gospel while sitting. Theophilus instructed the local Christians to listen to the Gospel while standing. Further, Theophilus was in Ethiopia and was received here with great honor and then returned to the borders of the Roman Empire. Here he enjoyed great respect from his contemporaries, although he did not receive a chair. His authority stood high, especially among the Arians. Appendix: Christianity in Ethiopia Already in the 4th century, Christianity apparently established itself in Ethiopia or Abyssinia. There is no reason to trace the spread of Christianity here to an earlier era. We do not know what happened to the Christianity that was planted here by the eunuch of the Kandakian queen, or to what extent Christianity took root in her country. But there is no doubt that she was a Meroitic queen. But the importance of the Meroitic kingdom gradually declined, and under Nero, the Roman tribune found almost only ruins in Meroi. But as it fell, the importance of the country rose, lying even higher from Egypt, inhabited by the “gyz” people, who, having adopted Christianity, began to call themselves “Ethiopians”, and among the Arabs known under the (contemptuous, meaning “all sorts of rabble”) name “habashun”, which was broken by Europeans into “Abyssinia”. The location of this area at the center of trade routes in Africa could have contributed to the emergence of a cultural center. Already the Egyptian Ptolemies were thinking of establishing themselves in Adul (near Massawa). From here, Hellenic education began to gradually penetrate into Abyssinia. In the first half of the 1st century AD, an unknown king of Aksum (in inscriptio Adulitana graeca) thanks the “greatest god Ares” (megistoV qeoV ArhV) for a number of victories won by him, the king, from the borders of Egypt to the present land of Somalia. These campaigns were undertaken by him - among other things, and perhaps mainly - with the aim of securing both the land and sea trade routes. Somewhat later than this king of Aksum, there lived another king of Aksum, ZwskalhV, a barbarian, but not alien to Hellenic culture and who perfectly understood the benefits that trade provided to his kingdom (it has still not been possible to identify this ZwskalhV with one of the Nygus named in the lists of the Ethiopian chronicles). The Aksumite kingdom, which showed such cultural inclinations and extended its power to the Arabian coast (Saba and Himyar), of course, should have attracted the attention of the interested spheres of the then Greco-Roman world. And we learn that under Constantius (c. 350) the Roman state was trying to establish relations with Aksum, and the Christian church was laying the foundation for the Christian enlightenment of this country. The primary source of information about this missionary enterprise is the history of Rufinus, written in 401. Some details of this story deserve attention simply because they give rise to important critical memento regarding the Greco-Roman evidence of Christian missions in general. The story of Edesius (AideosioV) and Frumentius, as related by Rufinus (h.e. I, 9), appears in its main outlines in this form. Meronius, the Tyrian philosopher, undertook a journey; With him were two of his relatives, Aedesius and Frumentius, the children of his brother. During one landing, the philosopher was killed, and the boys were presented to the king of the Indians. Then the usual story in the east: Frumentius becomes a beloved slave, and then the first minister in the state, and after the death of the king, the queen begged Frumentius to rule the state on behalf of the young king; and only when the young king reached adulthood (adolevisset) could Frumentius and Aedesius beg permission to return to their homeland. While Aedesius went to Tire and became a presbyter there, Frumentius went further (pergit) to Alexandria, where he informed Athanasius the Great, recently (nuper) installed as a bishop, about the readiness of the Indians to accept Christianity. Athanasius appointed Frumentius himself as bishop of this people, who owed him the beginnings of Christian enlightenment. Rufinus's narrative is subject to critical assessment a) from the external side (the question of the narrator and his sources) and b) from the internal side (possible verification of the story told by its content). In the first respect (a) the judgment about the story can only be the most favorable. a) Rufinus was 1) well educated, 2) knew not only Latin, but also Greek (he spoke the latter fluently), 3) lived in Alexandria for 6 years in a row (372–377) and was on friendly terms with personal acquaintances and friends of Athanasius the Great († May 2, 373), then (from 378 to 397) he lived in Jerusalem and sometimes made excursions to neighboring regions as far as Mesopotamia inclusive. Such a person undoubtedly had the opportunity to know a lot and had no real incentive not to tell the truth. b) The source from which Rufinus obtained information about Frumentius and Edesia is decidedly of the first rank. “Quae nos ita gesta, non opinione vulgi, sed ipso Aedesio Tyri presbytero postmodum facto, qui Frumentii comes prius fuerat, referente cognovimus.” Consequently, if Rufinus did not personally hear this from Edesius (the text allows for such an understanding, and, moreover, as the most natural, but does not oblige it: there is no forced “nobis” with “referente”), then - at least - he heard it from those who heard Edesius himself (otherwise it would have turned out to be “vulgi opinio”). But when checked from the internal (b) side - at point aa) chronology and bb) geography - a very unfavorable judgment is obtained about Rufinus’ story. aa) 1) Frumentius appears to Athanasius a little later after his ordination as bishop, and Athanasius the Great was ordained on June 8, 328, in any case, we have the right to assume that the consecration of Frumentius took place in the first era of Athanasius’s reign, in the interval between his consecration and his departure from Alexandria to the Council of Tyre; therefore it falls on the era from June 8, 328 to July 11, 335. Let us assume as an average figure – 333 = Frumentius’ consecration. In this case, 2) the enterprise of Meropius must be attributed to a more ancient time. The barbarians spared the boys because of their youth, because of the tenderness of their age; they were found while they were repeating a lesson, under a tree, therefore, we are dealing with school-age children, and giving the eldest of them Frumentius 15 years would be too much rather than too little. Then they became beloved slaves, ruled the state, and lived until the reigning Nygus came of age. Based on all this, one must assume that they lived in Ethiopia for 15–20 years, most likely the latter. So, if we assume that the year of Frumentius’s consecration as bishop was 333, then the attack on Meropius took place in 313. 3) But Rufinus says that Meropius undertook the journey following the example of another traveler who traveled in India, Metrodorus, and Metrodorus was in glory in 334. aa) In the chronicle of Jerome under this year it is noted: “at that time the philosopher Metrodorus was in glory” (Metrodorus philosophus agnoscitur). bb) If books X-XIII of Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum (“about exploits”) had been preserved to us, then we, of course, would know perfectly well what this adventurer became famous for; but, unfortunately, “libri, qui supersunt” (the surviving books) of A. Marcellinus begin only with XIV, and in XXV, 4, 23 he refers to “the previous for the following reason. Roman citizens held Julian the Apostate responsible for the failure of the Persian campaign; to this Ammianus replies that it was not Julian himself who was to blame for the fight against the Persians, but Constantine, who believed the empty tales (mendaciis) of Metrodorus and established hostile relations with the Persian king, which led to the Persian war. cc) But, apparently, the lost part of the story of A. Marcellinus was preserved (in its content) by Skylitzes, who (under 326) says that the adventurer Metrodorus was in India (with the Brahmins) and, returning from there, said that the Indian king gave gifts for Constantine, but that the largest and most precious part of these gifts was taken from him during his journey through Persia. Constantine began to demand the return of these gifts; but the Persian king Shapur II (309–379) refused. This strained relations between Rome and Persia to such an extent that Constantine the Great † May 22, 337, preparing for war with the Persians, and in 338 (under Constantius) this war began. dd) 334 (and not 326, which would have been too early: 12 years of diplomatic wrangling!!!) thus receives complete justification. 4) The era of prosperity = the return of Metrodorus falls at such a late time when Frumentius - according to the above assumption - was already a bishop, and Meronius, therefore, could not imitate Metrodorus. True, 5) there could have been aa) two Metrodors; and bb) the same Metrodorus could travel to India twice, before 313 and before 334; cc) Metrodorus could have gone to India around 310 and returned from there only in 334, therefore, Meropius could, following his example (without waiting for his return), set off on his own around 311; but according to the basic methodological rules: “simplex veri signum” and “non sunt multiplicandae causae”, the historian should not create a string of hypothetical facts, but must - without compelling reasons - not give up the idea that the journey of Metrodorus, which Meronius “imitated”, falls for a time shortly before 334. Consequently, Rufinus's chronology contains an internal contradiction. bb) Rufin's geographical data is even worse. Rufinus begins by noting that each apostle was assigned his own place for preaching: Matthew preached in Ethiopia, Bartholomew in citerior India adjacent to Ethiopia, Thomas in Parthia. Not in the region lying between nearby India and Parthia, but further - deep into extreme India (inter quam Parthiamque media, sed longo interior tractu, India ulterior jacet), due to its remoteness, none of the apostles preached, and only under Constantine were the first seeds of faith sown in it (Frumentius). Bartholomew preached precisely in India citerior, under which, as its proximity to Ethiopia shows, is of course the Arabian Peninsula, and India ulterior - more distant - lies between the Arabian Peninsula and Parthia, therefore, beyond the Persian Gulf, for the central line of Parthia is located at 58 ° east longitude from Greenwich. So, by it we must mean either the northern coast of the Arabian (Persian) Sea = Baluchistan, or - most naturally (because “in depth”) - Hindustan. Thus, we receive evidence that Frumentius preached in India itself, and not in Abyssinia. If Rufinus - with his capabilities - could not get an intelligent look at the matter from the stories of Edesius himself and could not say in detail when and where this mission was, then what can we say about those narrators who drew their information from oral rumor?! This story shows how careful one must be in relation to the news reported. If it had happened that Athanasius’s apology had not reached us, then this story of Rufinus would not have had a correction for itself, and science would have believed that it was about preaching in Hindustan! But – and another memento; no matter how confusing the chronology and geography are in Rufinus’ story, the fact itself (as can be seen from the same apology of Athanasius) conveyed by Rufinus is correct. Consequently, the greatest caution is needed when using rather unclear news, and from the inconsistency of details one should not draw a risky conclusion to the non-existence of the fact itself. Apologia ad Constantium imperatorem (“Ek pollwn etwn onta se critianon”) was written by the great Athanasius between February 24, 357 – October 2, 358. In it, Athanasius, with a series of documents, shows Constantius how inconsistent he is in his view of him, Athanasius. Among these documents incriminating Constantius is cited (n. 31) the message of Constantius “Froumentiou carin, tou episkopou thV AuxoumewV – toiV ekei turannoiV” (“because of Frumentius, Bishop of Aksum, to the local kings”). Constantius (after February 24, 357) writes to the Aksumite kings Aizana kai Sazanä “Send Bishop Frumentius as soon as possible to Egypt to the most honorable Bishop George (of Alexandria) and other bishops who have a special right to ordain and judge on theological issues. You are not unaware that Frumentius was ordained to this rank by Athanasius, who was guilty of countless evils. He is now running around in an unknown place. Beware lest he (Athanasius) sneak into Aksum and cause unrest not only churchly, but also politically. God bless you, adeljoi timiwtatoi.” It follows that if Frumentius had been ordained in 333, then in 357 he would already be close to the 25th anniversary of his bishopric. And then - a) For Constantius it would be risky to demand that the kings of Aksumite send their already almost old bishop to trial, who, of course, would have acquired enormous influence in 25 years. b) To cast a shadow on the consecration performed by Athanasius in 333, when in 332 he was honorably released by Constantine the Great to Alexandria and called in the imperial message “a man of God,” would mean to insult the memory of his great father on the part of Constantius. c) Since on October 21, 346, Athanasius the Great returned to the Alexandrian see not only with the permission of Constantius, but also at his urgent invitation, it would be inconvenient for the emperor to treat Athanasius the Great as guilty of many crimes in order to discredit the one who was consecrated by him, if the consecration had been carried out in 346–347. d) There is reason to believe that before 347 Frumentius was not yet a bishop. e) But it is known that in May 353 Constantius had already documented his displeasure towards Athanasius; and in 355, the emperor’s notary Diogenes was sent to Alexandria and from September 4 to December 23 he tried to oust Athanasius from the Alexandrian see and take him into custody. But the people put up energetic resistance, and the notary left with nothing. If the consecration of Frumentius took place in 355–356. , then the emperor, with some semblance of outward decency, could treat Athanasius as a bishop not recognized by law, because since September 355 he had occupied the Alexandrian see contrary to the will of Constantius. Therefore, to suppose that Frumentius was ordained at this late date is to indicate a satisfactory "inde irae" for the epistle to Aizana and Shadzana. The Epistle of Constantius suggests that both Nygus were zealous Christians. But the inscriptio graeca Axumitica has been preserved, in which “Aizana (FuyaftfM), king of the Aksumites and Omirites” etc. etc., “king of kings, son of the invincible god Ares” (uioV qeou anikhtou ArewV), announces the glorious victory over “bougaeitai” that he, Aizana, and his brothers, SaiazanaV kai AdhjaV, won; in gratitude for this, Aizana erected 5 statues to the god Ares. The question is: which comes first: the inscriptio or the epistle of Constantius? Adifa is not mentioned in this last one; consequently (assuming that Constantius was well aware of the state of affairs in Aksum), in 357 Adifa had already died (inscriptio before the epistle), or he was still so young that there was no talk of his co-government with Aizana (inscriptio later than the epistle). Both assumptions are not easy to reconcile with the details of the story of Rufinus and the message of Constantius. It is also possible, however, that Constantius mistakenly considered the Aksumite “turannoi” to be Christians, and that Aizana fell away from Christianity. In any case, it should be borne in mind that Frumentius’s education of a king (or kings called “Ylla-Azgvagva”) in the Christian faith is spoken of only in the Ethiopian synaxar; and Rufinus says nothing about the king’s conversion, and the missionary activity of Frumentius (before the episcopacy) is expressed in the fact that he invited Christian merchants in “India” to openly perform Christian worship, built several churches (“ecclesiis constructis”) and persuaded many natives to accept Christianity. Another question is more important: did Christianity, sown by Frumentius in Ethiopia, survive? Or - in another formulation: have the Abyssins preserved the living legend about St. Frumentius as their educator? They usually answer: yes, a) they honor St. Frumentia under the name "Abba Salama", b) they honor both Aizana and Sazana - their first Christian kings - under the name "Abrykh and Atsbykh, beloved brothers." Ad a). Synaxarion story about Abba Salama = St. Frumentius is borrowed from Greek monuments (which in turn depend on Rufinus), and in this form there is nothing indicative of living tradition. All that remains is the name “Abba Salama” (short for “Abba Salamawi” = “father of peace”; the connection between the concept of “peace” and the concept of “religion” is indicated by the Arabic word “Islam”, which comes from the root “salaam” = peace). But Abyssinian traditions (generally vague) know of three ancient metropolitans with the name “Abba Salama”; and, therefore, whether they originally attached the name “Abba Salama” to Frumentius is still a question. Ad b). 1) That the Abyssins consider the kings Abrykh and Atsbykh to be their, so to speak, enlighteners, this lies in the lexical meaning of these names. “A-bryha” is a verb in the causative form and means “made it shine” = “illuminated”; “A-tsbykha” – also verbum causativum = “made it dawn, brought with it the morning dawn.” 2) The Abyssins, apparently, do not remember anything about Aizan and Shadzan as such. 3) Under the names of Abrykh and Atsbykh, apparently, a completely different pair of historical figures is hidden. “Atsbyha” is the Nygus of Aksum, whom the Greeks knew under the name “ElesbaaV” or “Ellatzbaao” (Arabic “al-asbaahu”), and the Abyssins remember under the name “Kaleba”. Kaleb was a zealous Christian (monophysite), who gained great fame in the Greco-Roman Empire with his campaign after Pentecost in 525 against the Omirites and his complete victory over their Judaizing king Dzu-Nuwas. Dzu-Nuwas, of course, did not recognize the power of the kings of Aksum over himself and expressed his fanatical Jewish hatred of Christianity by beating the Christians of Najran on October 24, 523. Kaleb was thus an avenger for the blood of Christian martyrs. “Abryha,” known to the Greeks as AbramoV, to the Arabs as “Abryha,” was a Christian of humble birth, installed as king in Himyar by Ethiopian troops who rebelled against the Himyar governor appointed by Kaleb. The usurper Abryha endured a long struggle against the distant Nygus of Aksum so happily that around 550 Kaleb himself - ElesbaaV recognized Abryha-Abraham as the king of the Omirites under the hegemony of the Nygus of Aksum. Thus, the names “Abrykha and Atsbykha” represent a memory of important historical figures and facts of the 6th, not the 4th century. What about after the 4th century? (i.e. after Aizana and Shadzana) the pagan Nygus reigned in Aksum, this is beyond dispute. To this day, two inscriptions in the Ethiopian (Gyiz) language have been preserved in Aksum, erected by the same king of Aksum, Tazena, the son of Alamida, announcing the victories of Tazena. In the first of the inscriptions, Tazena titles himself, at the same time, “son of Makhrym” (= Destroyer = god Arey), and assigns more than 100 bulls to Makhrym as a thanksgiving sacrifice; in the second, the title “son of Makhrym” is no longer there, and thanksgiving is offered to God Almighty (Ygziabkher). Therefore, a pagan in the first, Tazena is a monotheist in the second inscription. To the question: was it Christian or Jewish monotheism? there is no answer in the caption. The indirect answer (against the second alternative) is that there is no news of the spread of Judaism in Ethiopia at this time, that Tazena's son Kaleb was a zealous Christian and, as Nygus of Aksum, led a glorious struggle against the political separatism of the Omirites, who opposed Ethiopia under the religious banner of Judaism. But “Tazena, son of Makhrym” represents monumental evidence that in the last half of the 5th century. The dominant religion in Ethiopia was paganism, and therefore the seeds of Christianity sown by St. Frumentius, they did not take strong roots in Ethiopia. Thus, from monumental data it is clear that one of the ancient Ethiopian Nygus, Tazena, was first a pagan, then became a monotheist and, probably, a Christian, and under him the second conversion of Ethiopia to Christianity took place. According to other news, Christianity was adopted by Aydog, the king of the internal Indians, who defeated the king of the external Indians. He sent an embassy to Alexandria, and from there John, promonary of the Alexandrian Church of John the Baptist, was appointed bishop to India. Maybe the same Tazena is hiding under Aydog, and maybe one of the Ethiopian governors in Arabia. In any case, John was a Monophysite, for in his time there was no Orthodox patriarch in Alexandria. Finally, there can be no doubt about Caleb’s religion, since with his representations to the Persian king, Caleb achieved that he ordered the release of the Monophysite bishops from prison. Research is also possible through internal research of a linguistic nature. For example, we call the Son of God Jesus Christ, and the Poles call Jesus Christ. Naturally, this difference in name indicates the history of the spread of Christianity. The same research method is applicable to the Abyssinian church. The ancient Ethiopian dialect is a branch of the Semitic language, which is divided into three layers: northern - Syriac, middle - Hebrew and southern - Arabic. The Ethiopian dialect belongs to the southern Arabic branch. It is difficult to expect that Ethiopian words coincide with Hebrew ones, and even more difficult with Syriac ones, due to the phonetic almost opposite nature of these extreme dialects. Therefore, the affinity of Ethiopian with Arabic, observed very often, is completely natural. On the contrary, the coincidence with Syriac deserves attention as something unusual. In general, the foreign element in Ethiopic should be treated with all the more seriousness, and historical conclusions can be drawn from it with all the more right, since the Ethiopic language has adopted few foreign words, while Coptic is full of Greek expressions. Ethiopians try to express theological concepts in their own way. For example, “Word” = LogoV = “Church” is not kuriakon, and not ekklhsia, but “house of Christians”. – Where do Ethiopians get their main Christian names and titles? 1) The word IhsouV in Coptic should be read as Iasus (Coptic accent h as a/e = English a in hat - hat, had - had). For Semites, on the contrary, it is strange that the initial “i” is obtuse (not iotized, not pronounced like j). The Syrians pronounce the name of Christ (yeshu), and the Arabs (yasuu), with a characteristic Semitic guttural (ayin) at the end. But the Ethiopians pronounce the name of Christ “Iyasus,” that is, they convey the Coptic pronunciation of this word as accurately as possible. 2) Christ is pronounced as Krystos (this is also the Coptic pronunciation of the word CristoV for the Russian ear, although the Abyssinians also have an Ethiopian word for CristoV “Masih”. 3) Monk - monakos (monacoV), - while among the Syrians - dayraya, among the Arabs - rahibun - borrowed by the Ethiopians from the Copts. 4) Bishop = bishopos; but deacon - Syriac mshamshana, Arabic shammasun, in Ethiopian - deacon, i.e. not diakonoV, but Coptic diakwn. But traces of North Semitic (Syrian) influence are also noticeable. For example, the law (of Moses) = orit, from the Syriac orait, while among the Arabs - namusun = nomoV. Then, takanasa – has only a special technical meaning sunagesqai (= to be in church, at worship); sir. knash, heb. kanas means “to collect in general”; but already in Arabic the word “kanisatun” (church) is a foreign word, while the Arabic (purely national) verb “kanasa” means “to sweep the floor with a broom,” and in Ethiopian the root “kanasa” is not at all common. Wed. also “haymanot” - “faith” among the Ethiopians = Syriac “haymanuta”, i.e. a word that in Syriac has a foreign appearance, indicating its Palestinian origin. Thus, next to the Coptic elements there are also Syrian ones. To assume that these (Syrian) words were brought down by St. Frumentius, it’s impossible (for he hardly knew the Syriac language, and, moreover, words like “orit” are too technical for a small boy). This means that there were also Syrian missionaries in Abyssinia. This is easy to explain: after the Council of Chalcedon, the Syrian inhabitants (monophysites) began to move to Egypt, and the Alexandrian patriarchs began to send them to Abyssinia. There is an indication in Abyssinian legends that Christianity among the Abyssins was spread by nine saints who arrived under Alameda or Saladoba from different places. The legend is dark, only the names of the saints are known. The impossible news is that some of these nine were disciples of St. Pachomius of Thebaid probably serves as an echo of the historical fact that the main missionaries among the Abyssinians were the southern Thebaidian monks - the Copts. The most remarkable of the 9 was Pantaleon, who blessed Kaleb to go against Dzu-nuwas and then tonsured Kaleb when he abdicated the throne (c. 550). In all likelihood, these saints were artificially united into one symbolic group, but in fact came from different places to Abyssinia and at different times (for example, Pantaleon would have lived an incredibly long time, if we assume that he too came to Ethiopia, at least under Alameda). They, according to legend, “artyyu” = diwrqwsan or katwrqwsan (“restored, corrected”) the faith. They either replaced non-Orthodoxy (from their point of view) with Orthodoxy, or simply raised the banner of Christianity. But since nothing is known about the fight against non-Orthodoxy; on the contrary, tradition represents them as planting Christianity on pagan soil (the fight against serpent worship), we have to conclude that the seeds of Christianity sown by St. Frumentius, died out in Abyssinia by the end of the 5th century. Thus, present-day Abyssinia owes its Christian enlightenment to Monophysite missionaries; therefore, Christianity was implanted here in the form of Monophysitism, and there was no falling away from Orthodoxy. One cannot expect clear legends about this distant church past among the Abyssinians because political disasters (since the 7th century?) drowned out their memories of their political history, so that Caleb himself turned into a semi-mythical image. 3. The spread of Christianity in the West Christianity in Italy and Africa Regarding Italy, there is hardly any need to expand. In Rome, Christianity was planted not by the apostles Peter or Paul, but by the people who were in Jerusalem at Pentecost. It is undeniable, however, that the ap. Peter died in Rome. The outskirts of Italy also make claims to enlightenment with Christianity from the apostles, for example, Milan - Barnabas, but there is no solid data for this. From Italy, Christianity spread to Africa. The African Church has always looked at the Roman Church as an ecclesia matrix. It is known that the African bishop Agrippinus convened in 215–217. a council attended by up to 70 bishops. It is clear that Christianity has existed in Africa for a long time. The absence of bishops from Mauritania at the council seems to indicate the weakness of Christianity in it. But perhaps the Moorish bishops were not present at the council due to their remoteness. The significant number of bishops at this council is explained by the fact that the African church was inclined to increase their number. The names of the first Carthaginian bishops are historically known: Optatus, Agrippinus, Donatus and Cyprian. The name of Optata is mentioned in the martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitata cum sociis (7 March 203). In the vision, the martyr in paradise speaks in Greek with “Pope Optatus, the bishop, and AspasioV, the presbyter,” which likely indicates both the liturgical use of the Greek language and the importance of people of Greek origin in the African church, therefore, the proximity of 203 to the beginning of Christianity in Africa. The Acts of the Martyrs of Iskhli (victims of July 17, 180) were probably written (Aube vs. Usener) in Greek. It is known that Tertullian himself entered the literary field with a work in Greek. Nam-phamo is recognized as the first martyr (archimartyr) of the African Church; Consequently, he died before July 17, 180, and since he was a man with a purely Punian name, his first martyrdom already signifies the penetration of Christianity into a purely popular layer. All this taken together suggests that Optatus was not the first Carthaginian bishop, and that Christianity began in Africa a long time ago, perhaps at the end of the 1st century. Ancient Spain embraced present-day Spain and Portugal. There is an opinion that the apostle preached the gospel here. Paul. But this statement is based on only one word from the epistle of St. Paul to Romans 15:24,28: the apostle expresses his intention to visit Spain. But whether he was there preaching the Gospel or not is unknown. Based on some data, one can even assume that the apostle did not have to fulfill his intention. Consultation with the ancient interpreters of this passage would not give us anything other than their assumptions based on this very place. There was also a legend that Christianity was planted in Spain by none other than the Apostle James Zebedee. But this legend is nothing more than a dark product of medieval ignorance and, as such, obviously does not stand up to any criticism. Complete and indisputable data for the initial history of Christianity in Spain can serve as: 1) the Spanish cathedral - concilium Illiberitanum (Illiberis, Eliberis, Elvira = present-day Granada), which met in the first half of 306 (A. W. W. Dale, The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the fourth century London 1882). This cathedral testifies to the widespread spread of Christianity in his time. It was attended by 19 bishops of various cities in Spain and, in addition to them, 24 presbyters. However, of this number of presbyters, 17 undoubtedly had their own bishops at the council, with whom they arrived at the council. Nothing prevents us from assuming that the remaining 7 were commissioners from their bishops. If so, then at the Council of Elvira the Spanish Church had 26 representatives; This number, of course, does not indicate the entire number of Spanish sees at this time: there could be more. 2) If we rise half a century higher, then we will find another testimony there, which also has full significance for the original history of the Spanish church. We are talking about the response letter (ep. 67) of Cyprian and the Council of Carthage to a request from the clergy of the three cities now called Astorga, Leon and Merida (“Felici presbytero et plebibus consistentibus ad Legionem et Asturicae [Leon and Astorga], item Laelio diacono et plebi Emeritae [now Merida] consistentibus” [To the Presbyter Felix and the people staying in Leon and Astorga, as well as Deacon Laelius and the people staying in Merida]). Written before September 1, 256 (O. Ritschi, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche. Gottingen 1885). The reason for the request was the following circumstances. During the previous persecution, two Spanish bishops Martial (Martialis, probably of Astorg, replaced by Felix) and Basilides (Bishop of Leonese? Merida? replaced by Sabinus) renounced Christianity. Their apostasy was complete. After the persecution, Basilides confessed his sins, declared himself unworthy to be a bishop and asked only that he be allowed communio laica. His request was fulfilled, and he himself and his fellow apostate Martial were deprived of their bishoprics and other persons were appointed to their sees. After some time, Basilides repented of his repentance and again wanted to be a bishop. Therefore, he turned his case to the Bishop of Rome, Stephen, and this latter recognized Basilides and Martial as legitimate bishops, and their successors in their sees as not elected according to the rules. Since Stephen, from his point of view, recognized the repentant bishops as right and stood for the return of their sees, the clergy of the interested churches turned to the African bishops with a question. Together with the clergy, Felix and Sabina were especially warmly recommended to Cyprian by the Bishop of Zaragoza (Caesaraugustanus) Felix. Thus, in ep. 67 Cypriani are attested for 256 in Spain 3 sees, but there were undoubtedly more of them, since on January 11, 259 on Friday (a detail that puts the year beyond doubt) he died a martyr - he was sentenced to death with the word: “fuisti” and burned alive - Bishop of Tarracona (now Tarragona) Fructuoso, the first known by name and, perhaps, historically the first bishop of Tarracona. Then - in ascending chronological order - in the martyrologies of the 9th century (Usuardus, about 876) we encounter the legend of the Spanish septem-viri, missionary bishops sent to Spain by the app. Peter and Paul and founded their respective churches. Their names: 1. Torquatus, episcopus of the city of Acci (Guadix) Indaletius (EndeleceioV) Urci (Arbucena) – memorial. Apr 30 Ctesipho (Kthsijwn) Bergi (Veria) – monument. 1 Apr. Caecilius Eliberis (Granada) – monument. 1 Feb. Esitius (HsucioV) Carcesa (Cazoria) 7. Euphrasius (EujrasioV) Illiturgi (Andujar) In addition to special days, in the Spanish Gothic calendar May 1 commemorates “Torquatus and others like him,” and in the Mozarabic liturgy there is a hymn common to all (May 15). How to relate to this legend? The meeting of the apostles Peter and Paul in one place suggests their meeting either in Antioch or in Rome - the latter fact is far from indisputable. But if we leave this detail aside and accept it as a local legend, then we must admit that there is nothing incredible in this story. It should be noted that among the names of these men there are 4 Greek: Indalecius - Greek EndeleceioV, Ctisiphon - clearly Greek, Ezitsius - distorted Greek Hesychius, and Euphrasius. Thus, at this point, Spanish tradition assures that these western outskirts owe the first light of Christian enlightenment to people of Greek origin. It is impossible to draw any further conclusions from this, because the Roman Church itself remained Greek until the 3rd century. Likewise, there is no reason to insist that these 7 persons necessarily appeared at the same time. It can be assumed that later tradition combined the names of the first bishops of several cities into one group. They could have acted at different times, but nevertheless, tradition brought them, as the first bishops, to the times of the apostles. It is only possible to establish that Christianity appeared in Spain very early, if not in the first, then in the second century, and spread gradually; there is no reason to dispute that some of the fathers of the Council of Elvira were the first bishops in their cities. Of the known Spanish church traditions, the one named (about septem-viri) is the most authoritative; There are later legends that give more complete lists of the bishops of this or that city, but to the same extent and less reliable. So, for example, according to an authoritative tradition, Granada considers Caecilius its first bishop, and the second - in the historical list of its bishops - is Flavian, who was present at the Council of Elvira and signed the conciliar acts 8th among other bishops. But the later tradition of the Granadian church tries to fill the gap between Caecilius and Flavian and gives 6 names, of which the first - Leuverindus - is already of Gothic origin. The ancient Church of Braga (Bracara, now Braga) honors April 26 as its first founder, Bishop Peter of Rathen - Petrus Rathensis, about whose historical authenticity even the Bollandists speak like this: “Demus hoc sane Bracarensium credulitati [This, of course, is due to the gullibility of the inhabitants of Braga].” Local traditions of some other cities are also known of this kind, such as Toledo, which, not content with the fact that its first historically reliable bishop (Melantius) participated in the Council of Elvira, traces the foundation of its church to a certain “Eugene”, the tradition of which in Spain remained unknown until the 11th-12th centuries. Gaul is a region that, at the very least, can lay claim to the emergence of Christianity in it under the apostles with the same thoroughness as Spain. If the message of St. Apostle speaks in favor of the antiquity of Christianity in Spain. Paul to the Romans, the significance of this testimony is weakened by the fact that everything depends on the question whether the apostle carried out this intention. In favor of the apostolic origin of Christianity in Gaul is the statement read in 2 Epistle to Timothy, Chapter IV. Art. 10, where we find a mention of the companions of St. Paul: “Demas left me and went to Thessalonica, Crescentus to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia, and only Luke remained with me.” This reading “to Galatia” is so familiar to us that it seems to none of us that it occurs to us whether there is evidence here in favor of the Gallic church. Meanwhile, in Tischendorf’s edition it reads: “eporeuqh – – KrhskhV eiV G a l l i a n” (Tischendorf, ed. N. T. VIII critica major). Thus, this is a reading that is favorable for every Frenchman who tries to surround his church with an aura of apostolic origin. To verify the results of Tischendorf's critical research, science has two editions of the New Testament: 1) Tregelles (Tregelles, ed. 1857–1879), who spent a lot of time on research and critical installation of the text he published, and 2) Westcott and Hort (Westcott et Hort, ed.1870–1881). [In Novum Testamentum graece recensionis Tischendorfianae ultimae textum cum Tregellesiano et Westcottio-Hortiano contulit et brevi adnotatione critica additisque locis parallelis illustravit Oscar de Gebhardt (editio stereotypa quinta Lipsiae 1891, p.420) it reads:] “T § H: Galatian.” That is, 1) in NT ed. Tregelles reads "Galatian", but on the field stands Gallian; that is, according to this publisher, the reading of "Gallian" could even be adopted into the text, but behind "Galatian" there are somewhat more authoritative manuscripts than for "Gallian". 2) In NT ed. Westcott et Hort reads "Galatian", and "Gallian" is not considered even well enough attested to give this reading a place in the field. Thus, in relation to this place, the latest authoritative critical publications differ from each other. We have to turn to the evidence of ancient manuscripts. The most important uncial manuscripts for 2 Timoth. [cf. in Gebhardt, adnotatio critica, p.489]: a = Cod. Sinaiticus Petropolitanus A = Cod. Alexandrinus, s.V., Londini C = Cod. S. Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, Parisiis. s.V D = Cod. Bezae Cantabrigiensis, s. VI G = Cod. Seidelii, Londini, s. IX-X. Gallian a С min5am* tol aeth Eus Epiph alvi Galatian ADG... vvpl (arm Galileian) Iri Chr al. min5 = code. graec. literis minusculis scriptus No. 5 am* = in the handwriting of the first scribe (but later corrected to Galatian) in cod. Amiatinus (Latin manuscript, until recently considered the most ancient representative for the versio Vulgata) tol(etanus?) also a Latin Vulgate aeth = versio aethiopica Eusebii h. e. 3, 4 (epi taV GalliaV) alvi = alii, ut videtur, patres et scriptores ...after ADG = et alii codd. sat multi (vel plerique) vvpl = versiones plurimae (but the Armenian translation “to Galilee” certainly favors the reading of eiV Gallian) Iri = s. Irenaei interpres latinus Chr(ysostomus) (i.e., the authoritative editio = recensio Luciani, which was widespread in the Patriarchate of Antioch [= Syriac translation of the peshito from it] and then in Constantinople [from where the Slavic “to Galatia”]). al = alii. Historical reasons are of decisive importance in this matter. St. Irenaeus, the bishop of Gaul himself, apparently does not know that there is a tradition in the Gallic church about the preaching of St. Crescens. But it is difficult to admit that Irenaeus, this almost contemporary of the apostles, would not have reached the tradition of the apostolic origin of the Gallic church, if such a thing existed. Thus, the reading "eiV Galatian" is undoubtedly correct, which is very important for the church history of Gaul. There were, however, circumstances that could have contributed to the spread of Christianity in Gaul even in apostolic times. Archelaus was exiled to Vienne, in the province of Narbonne. Here, without a doubt, a Jewish settlement was formed, albeit a small one, which was keenly interested in everything that happened in Palestine. Therefore, it could easily have happened that Christianity penetrated into Gaul in the very first year after Pentecost. Then, it is known that ap. Paul met the proconsul Sergius Paulus in Paphos and converted him to Christianity (Acts 12:7,12). Since the pagan surname Sergiev Pavlov, as can be seen from the tombstone inscriptions, lived near Narbonne, it is assumed that it is not impossible that Sergius, converted by the apostle, was from this surname; in Paul, Bishop of Narbonne, they see, if not the proconsul himself, then one of the members of this family. But these are all just wonderful hopes, not confirmed by almost historical data. Gregory of Tours testifies that the beginning of all churches in Gaul dates back to the time of no earlier than the persecution of Decius, i.e. 250, but, as a later writer, he, too, with his testimony raises doubts. What constitutes the Council of Elvira for Spain, the Council of Arles (concilium Arelatnse I) on August 1, 314 represents for Gaul. Church history has to talk about this council on the issue of Donatism: it was to settle this schism that it was convened by Constantine the Great. Certain circumstances preceding this council give it special significance. The Donatists themselves turned to the emperor with a request to give them arbitrators in their case, namely from Gaul, whose bishops had not stained themselves with tradition. Constantine, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, invited bishops from various places to Arles. The council was supposed to be grandiose, and there should be a majority of Gallic bishops in it. That these bishops really constituted the majority is evidenced by the second Council of Arles in 451, mentioning the first, that it was predominantly Gallic, that there were bishops ex omnibus mundi partibus, praecipue Gallicanis (from all parts of the world, predominantly Gallic). Naturally, it becomes especially reasonable to conclude from the number of Gallic bishops present at the council to the number of Gallic bishops in general in this case. But the defenders of the greater glory of the Gallic church, in order to weaken the immediate conclusion that is inconvenient for them, raise the question in general about the number of bishops at the council and point to a number of manuscripts where this council is called “coetus episcoporum sexcentorum”. However, the Latin “sexcenti”, like the Greek “murioi”, is only a hyperbolic expression of an indefinite multiplicity (cf. Horatius: “sexcentos inserts” when it comes to a river boat), and a local council of 600 bishops next to the First Ecumenical Council of 318 would represent historical implausibility. Without attaching historical significance to the number “600,” we accept as historically reliable (with the possibility of a slight plus for omissions) the number 33, which is given by the signatures. Of these, 16 are in Gaul. The spread of Christianity is thus seen in a peculiar light. 8 bishops are located in the territory near the Mediterranean Sea (Aries, Marseilli, Vienne, Mende, Vaison, Orange, Apte et Nice), the rest of Gaul is also represented by 8 bishops (Lyon, Autun, Reims, Treves, Cologne, Rouen, Bordeaux et Eauze). Meanwhile, the territory of the northwestern outskirts, between the Seine and the Garonne, does not have a single person among its representatives. Scholars who defend the idea of ​​the spread of Christianity in Gaul in the earliest times have expressed many objections to the conclusion drawn (Dom Francois Chamard, Les Eglises du Monde Romain, notamment cells des Gaules, pendant les trois premiers siecles. Paris 1877). Under the acts of the Council of Serdica there are, according to the testimony of Athanasius the Great, up to 34 Gallic signatures. This circumstance increases the number of episcopal sees in the country. But in order to make it possible to count them as a huge number, the defenders of the widespread spread of Christianity in Gaul argue that the signatures are not particularly important because they are carelessly composed. The scribe came from the Mediterranean coast and noted only the bishoprics close to his homeland, and in relation to the rest of Gaul he limited himself to noting one bishop from each of the 8 metropolitan provinces. That the bishops in Gaul were numerous is evident from the fact that, according to the rules of the holy fathers (Arelat. I can. 20), each bishop should be ordained by 8, and, in extreme cases, 3 bishops. The possibility of the appearance (= feasibility) of these rules in the Gallic church testifies to the significant number of episcopal sees in it. Since from 297 a division into 17 provinces was established: Belgica I. II; Germania I.II; Lugdunensis I. II. III. IV; Maxima Sequanorum; Alpes Grajae; Alpes Maritimae; Viennensis; Aquitania I.II; Narbonensis I.II; Novempopulana, then it is natural to assume that there were more than 7 bishops in each province; Thus, we get a grandiose idea of ​​the wide spread of Christianity in Gaul. But if you look at these arguments more seriously, you can easily see a contradiction in them. To prove that the incredible number of “600” bishops was present at the Council of Arles, they refer to the fact that this figure is attested by manuscripts that were scattered throughout the monasteries of all Gaul and, therefore, is certified by church tradition throughout Gaul. Meanwhile, when it is necessary to say that only 16 names of Gallic bishops have been preserved in the manuscripts, they argue that history owes this inaccuracy to the fact that the manuscripts depend on a copy compiled by someone from the province of Vienne, who was not interested in northern Gaul. Consequently, not a single person was found in any monastery who, in the interests of his province, would fill in the gaps made by the first Viennese scribe. As for can. 20, then what is the basis for asserting that each civil province in Gaul actually corresponded to an ecclesiastical province? Several civil provinces could constitute only one ecclesiastical province. So, based on the data of the Council of Arles, we have to conclude that Christianity was more widespread in the south of Gaul than in the north. To assert that there were no bishops in the northwestern cities not mentioned at the council would be illogical; but there is also no reason to assume that by simple chance (for example, the difficulty of the path) not a single bishop appeared from this corner, since even 3 bishops appeared from distant Britain. Consequently, Christianity was poorly spread in the northwestern corner at this time. In view of these facts, in France there is a scientific trend that presents the matter in a light less favorable to the glory of Gaul. Le Blanc (chevalier Le Blunt), an expert in Christian epigraphy in Gaul, found that the conclusions regarding his specialty were quite consistent with those that could be drawn from the signatures of the Cathedral of Arles. In ascending order, the Council of Arles is followed for Gaul by the testimony of St. Cyprian in Ep. 68. He learned from Faustin, bishop of Lyons, that the bishop of Arles, Marcian (Marcianus), had taken the side of the Novatians. From the book I, 10, 2 “Against heresies” of St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (+ c. 202), we learn about the establishment of the church among the Celts and Germans along the banks of the Rhine. The letter of the southern Gaulish Christians about the persecution of Christians that happened in Lyon in 177, written in Greek, informs, among other things, about the martyrdom of the Bishop of Lyons Pofin (PoqeinoV; - a purely Greek name), a more than 90-year-old elder, and among the martyrs notes “Attalon Pergamhnon tw genei, stulon kai edraiwma twn entauqa aei gegonota" (“Attalus, a Pergamian by birth, who has always been the support and stronghold of the local (Christians)”) (Euseb. h. e. V, 1, 29. 17). The successor of St. Pofina was St. Irenaeus (EirhnaioV), a man with a purely Greek name, a Greek writer of Asia Minor origin, who remembered Polycarp of Smyrna very well and was his listener at a young age (paiV eti wn, Euseb. h. e. V, 20, 5–7; 5, 8; IV, 14:3). All this says that relations between Lyon and Asia Minor at that time were the liveliest. And if we take into account the practice of the ancient church, which rarely allowed exceptions, according to which the bishop was chosen from the local clergy, then in the election of the Asia Minor St. Irenaeus as Bishop of Lyon, not without reason, we will see an indication that the Lyon church was then still relatively new and, probably, St. Pofinus was its first bishop. The history of the spread of Christianity in Gaul - in ascending order - ends with the names of seven bishops who were sent to preach in Gaul. Their names are mentioned in the history of Gregory of Tours (1595). Gregor. turon., hist. franc. 1.18: "Hi ergo missi sunt: Turonicis (Tours Gatianus episcopus; Arelatensibus (Aries) Trophimus episcopus; Narbonae (Narbonne) Paulus episcopus; Tolosae (Toulouse) Satuminus episcopus; Parisiacis (Paris) Dionysius episcopus; Arvernis (Clermont in Auvergne) Stremonius episcopus; Lemovicis (limoges) Martialis est destinatus episcopus." Those who want to prove the apostolic origin of the Gallic church claim that these bishops were sent either by the apostles themselves or by their disciples; at the same time, Dionysius of Paris is usually identified with Dionysius the Areopagite, and in Bishop Trophimus they see. companion of the Apostle Paul. But Gregory of Tours is against this view: he assumes that the mission of the seven bishops falls in the year 250. The decisive authority is the authentic martyrdom of Saturninus, Bishop of Toulouse, who died a martyr sub Decio et Grato consulibus, i.e. in 250. The tradition has been preserved that he was the first bishop of Toulouse and, according to the consular date, in 250 Thus, one has to choose between the apostolic century and the first half of the 3rd century. But this conclusion cannot be considered correct. Probably, in the Gallic church the names of bishops who lived at different times were combined into the symbolic number 7. Saturninus, a man with a Roman name, was the first bishop of Toulouse and suffered under Decius in 250. He was the first preacher of the gospel word, met opposition from the priests, fell from the mob, and was tied to the tail of an angry bull. There is a legend (from Gregory of Tours) that before his death the martyr predicted to the ungrateful flock that a bishop would not be elected from among them, and Gregory testifies that before his time this prophecy was fulfilled literally. Other information also agrees with this data. Toulouse is a city on the southwestern outskirts of Gaul. Here Christianity spread both late (about 250) and very slowly. Gatian of Tours (northwestern outskirts) died after 50 years of peaceful rule, therefore (according to Gregory of Tours), around 300. I have already pointed out the imagination of scientists who are trying to identify Paul, the first bishop of Narbonne, with Sergius Paul the proconsul, converted to Christianity by the ap. Pavel. But Gregory of Tours dates him back to 250 and includes him among the septemvirs of the Gallic church. Next to – perhaps the Greek – Stremonius, then stand the undoubted Greeks Dionysius of Paris and Trophimus of Arles. If Gregory's assumption about the embassy of Dionysius around 250 is in harmony with the data on the late spread of Christianity in the north-west of Gaul, then the Greek name Dionysius suggests an earlier period. Its identity with Areopagite is more than doubtful. The opinion of his embassy by Clement of Rome (Venantius Fortunatus?) is not very authoritative. That he died a martyr, says - following Dextre † 444 - and Gregory of Tours; and the date of martyrdom “sub Sisinnio Fescennino” (in Dexter) does not provide anything for chronology. Many associated the beginning of Christianization in Gaul with the name of Trophimus, the first bishop of Arles. Some argued that this Trophimus was the apostolic disciple mentioned in the epistles. Therefore he played an important role in the history of the Arles church. When a dispute arose about the superiority of this church over the Viennese one, the name of Trophimus, as a disciple of the apostle, was put forward as the reason for the superiority of the first church over the second. In the 5th century, it was passed off as a firm tradition in Gaul and Rome that the Christianization of Gaul began with the city of Arles; this is confirmed by the message of Pope Zosima in 417. But in reality, the advantage of Arles was of a purely political nature: Arles was the most significant city in civil terms, and therefore laid claim to primacy. The papacy, being in a difficult situation, looked at this freely. According to the pope, the connecting center of the Christian world should be Rome, where the emperors themselves once lived. But this situation began to change since the time of Constantine the Great, who moved his residence to the east; Western emperors later had their residence in Mediolan. This was a fatal moment for Rome. Mediolan became the attractive center of Christianity, and not Rome with its Senate, reduced to the position of a city duma. And since Mediolan, both due to the unity of the church structure and the unity of the population, developed its influence on the southern Gallic churches, Rome needed to weaken the force of attraction of the Gallic churches towards Mediolan. One might have expected that Mediolanus would declare itself an ecclesiastical center and assert influence over the southern Gallic churches. And so Rome is trying to establish a vicariate in Arles so that the vicar of Arles, relying on the authority of the popes, would extend his influence to the southern Gallic churches. But when the emperors moved their residence to Ravenna, which was not recognized as having important ecclesiastical significance and was located far from Gaul (on the shores of the Adriatic Sea), the popes lost interest in the vicar of Arles and began to look at him as a simple metropolitan. And only later, after a long time, when the Germans appeared in Gaul, Arles again received the meaning of a vicariate. Solid foundations for the original history of Christianity in Gaul were laid by the remarkably impartial [still unfinished] study of Duchesne: L. Duchesne, Pastes episcopaux de 1'ancienne Gaule. T. I-II. Paris 1894–1899. To determine the beginning of the existence of a particular church, lists of its bishops, “fasti episcopates,” can be used. In ancient times, prayers for the living and for the dead were said publicly in the church. While the bishop of the church was alive, his name was placed in one part, but when he died, his name was transferred to another part. These memorials served as the source for “fasti episcopales” - episcopal catalogues; but, unfortunately, not all churches have valid catalogs, so scientists can only have a limited number of them in their research. Where reliable lists have been preserved and the historian needs to establish chronological dates, it is necessary to combine the names of the bishops on the list with the names of the bishops at the councils or vice versa - and approximate dates will be obtained. Having received a number of bishops of a separate church, one can judge its antiquity. Based on these lists, it is impossible to attribute the founding of the church in Gaul to apostolic times or to those immediately following them. Among the sources of the history of ancient Gaul is a monument known as Notitia Galliarum [ed. Seeck 1876], which lists all the most important cities of Gaul, civitates, with a complete civil structure. These were the original bishoprics. There are 113 such civitates, but 4 of them soon ceased to exist. In addition, by the end of the 6th century. bishoprics existed in 14 towns that did not belong to the civitates, but 4 of them appeared no earlier than the 6th century; This means that by the beginning of the 6th century only 10 such towns had bishoprics. The total bishopric was, therefore, 109 + 10 = 119. This number (by the beginning of the 6th century) in turn breaks down (according to Duchenne) into two: 86 + 33. Regarding the 86 bishoprics, scientists do not know the time of their origin: only 17 of these bishoprics have evidence for themselves from the 4th century. The time of the emergence of the 33rd bishopric is determined approximately. Only one of them - Lyon - is known to have existed back in the 2nd century. About half of the 3rd century. 4 bishoprics arose: Toulouse, Vienne, Trier and Reims; 6 bishoprics, including Paris and Cologne, arose around 300. Of the remaining 22, only a few existed by the 4th century, most arose during the time of Constantine the Great, and others even in the 2nd half of the 4th century. Among the ancient centers of Christianity should be Marseille, founded around 600 BC. St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, was ordained bishop in 372, and he was already the 3rd Bishop of Tours. Regarding the structure of the Gallic churches in ancient times, a curious monument is the mentioned letter of the Gallic Christians to the Asians about the persecution that took place under Marcus Aurelius (Eus. h. e. V, 1). It begins like this: “The servants of Christ residing in Vienne and Lyon” (Oi en Biennh kai Lougdounw thV GalliaV paroikounteV douloi Cristou toiV kata thn Asian kai Frugian – adeljoiV). “I sit down” is the Greek paroikew, from which comes “parikia” - diocese, i.e. church society headed by a bishop; only later did paroikia come to mean parish. From this it is clear that the Christian Church considered private churches as temporary areas in which Christians were not full citizens (politai, but only residents; and the paroikia itself does not indicate who is at the head of society. In this address, Vienne is in first place, not Lyon, although the latter was the main one. Perhaps this is due to the then methods of the authors to take the reader’s point of view, and from the point of view of Asian Christians, Vienne was more important and closer to them. Or maybe this was done because the initiative for the letter belonged to the Christians of Vienne. The distance of Vienne from Lyon along the main road is 23 Roman miles, and since a Roman mile = 1.4785 km (693 fathoms), then 23 miles = 34 km, in a straight line - 16 miles = about 23.5 km. Despite the close distance, these cities belonged to different systems of government. Vienne was in the senate region - Narbonensis, headed by a proconsul, and Lyon - in the imperial district under the control of the imperial legate (legatus Augusti pro praetore). It is not clear from the address where the persecution of 177 took place, in Lyon or Vienne, it is only clear that it was in one specific city (h poliV). But since the message says that in this city there is an amphitheater, an hegemon (which corresponds to the representative), as well as soldiers, it means that we are not talking about a senatorial province, but about an imperial one, i.e., it means that the persecution took place in Lyon. And if Saint, the deacon of Vienne, was among the martyrs, then he was subject to the trial of the praetor, and not the proconsul, because he was captured in Lyon, otherwise he would have been subject to the trial of the proconsul. Obviously, this deacon was not well known, since the epistle finds it necessary to define him as “ton diakonon apo BiennhV.” A certain member shows that he was the only deacon in Vienne. The Council of Elvira provides in its 77th canon: “Si quis diaconus regens plebem sine episcopo vel presbytero aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit” [If a deacon caring for the flock without a bishop or presbyter baptizes someone, then the bishop must give a blessing (Lat.)], such a deacon who himself performed baptism and stood at the head of the plebs. And Gregory of Tours mentions parishes headed by deacons. Since this phenomenon was and was considered legal in subsequent times, it may very well be that the Saint was precisely the diaconus regens plebem. An important evidence of Christianity in Gaul is, then, the mention of Eusebius (V, 23) about the message (c. 195 on the issue of the time of the celebration of Easter) of “the Gallic wigs over which Irenaeus was bishop” (twn kata Gallian paroikiwn, ​​aV EirhnaioV epeskopei). Were other bishops subordinate to Irenaeus, i.e. Was he a metropolitan, or just a bishop? At this time, councils are convened, over which the bishop presides. In relation to the eastern councils, Eusebius expresses that the bishop is proutetakto (Theophilus, PalmaV), presides, and in relation to the western ones, that he is epeskopei. Guided by the total amount of data, the historian would have to conclude that the church structure for Gaul was the same as for Palestine. But now, in the light of this evidence, we can dwell on the conclusion of Duchenne that Irenaeus was the bishop of all Gaul, and several wigs were ruled by deacons and presbyters. The basis for Duchenne was the place of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, commenting on the pastoral epistles of St. Paul, touched upon the ancient church system and expressed the idea that at first the apostles stood at the head of Christians in individual provinces, and after the death of the apostles, their successors did not dare to appropriate the title of apostles and began to be called bishops; in unimportant towns, communities were governed by persons with the rights of current elders. Subsequently, 2 and 3 bishops appeared in one province (kat eparcian). This is how things stand in the West, according to Theodore, even at the present time, or at least it was the case in recent times." In ancient times, there were thus very few bishops in Gaul, and therefore many wigs were ruled by presbyters and even deacons. This type of church structure is also seen in northern Italy. In fact, there is a big difference in church structure between northern Italy and southern Italy. Southern Italy is like Africa, where after 250 Cyprian could already convene a council of 90 bishops. In the IV and V centuries. in southern Italy and Africa bishops can be numbered in the hundreds. In northern Italy there have never been more than 50 bishops, and not all of them have definite information. So, for example, at the Council of Arles in 314. there were the 7th bishop of Mediolan and the 5th of Aquileia; At the Council of Serdica in 343, the following were present: the 12th bishop of Ravenna, the 6th of Verona and the 5th of Brescia. Only with regard to the bishoprics of Equal and Mediolan can we draw the conclusion that they go back to the beginning of the 3rd century. And Eusebius, who died in 370, was the first bishop of Vercello. Some bishoprics arose after Ambrose of Milan. Thus, two different types can be seen in the character of the ancient church organization. On the one hand, there are churches with a wide development of bishops, because even in unimportant places there were bishops. Hence, for the Eastern Church, the remark of Ignatius the God-Bearer that there is no church without a bishop receives a literal meaning. On the other hand, there are churches with a weak development of the episcopal system. There were bishops here only in the main city of the province; in other towns presbyters or deacons ruled. Christianity in Germany and the Danube Christianity appeared in Germany later. It must be admitted that it was established here before Constantine (at the Council of Arles, among the Gallic bishops, the bishops of the German cities of Cologne and Trier signed). It later spread along the Danube. The martyrdoms about which news has been preserved fall in the era of Diocletian, for example, the martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium. Perhaps the proximity of Sirmium to the east, perhaps the Greek (understandable in the still young church) origin of the martyr, and perhaps the fact that the attention of the east was drawn to him, as the first bishop of Sirmium, contributed to the fact that the name of St. Irenaeus was included in the martyrologies of the distant east (Syrian 410–411, Coptic, Ethiopian). Bishop Eusebius of Kivali and Montanus, presbyter of Singidun, also suffered under Diocletian. Local legends regarding the beginning of Christianity in Pannonia boil down to two stories: a) about quatuor coronati (warriors, of which one has the Greek name KarpojoroV), and b) about stonecutters (one, NikostrtoV, with a Greek name). These latter were baptized by the Bishop of Antioch, Cyril, who was exiled to the Pannonian quarries (according to the chronicle of Eusebius-Jerome, the 18th Bishop of Antioch, Cyril, ruled the church in 279–301). According to legend, the stonecutters, with the art of their work, attracted the attention of Diocletian himself, who - due to intrigue against them on the part of their rivals - ordered them to make a statue of Aesculapius. Refusal to fulfill this command led them to martyrdom. Quatuor coronati died for refusing to sacrifice to Aesculapius. The names of the holy martyrs Aphra of Augsburg and Victorinus, Bishop of Pettavia (both under Diocletian) mark the progressive movement of Christianity to the upper reaches of the Danube. Christianity in Britain and Ireland The most distant outskirts of the west were Great Britain with its two main islands - one occupied by England and Scotland, the other by Ireland. How long ago the light of Christianity penetrated these islands and where it came from, these questions have not been positively resolved. The fact that Christianity penetrated into Britain from the east and at a very early time, not only traditions, but also legends have not been preserved in the British Church. The most tendentious of British legends says that the British king Lucius (rex Britanniae Lucius) sent ambassadors to the Roman bishop Eleuther with a request to send him preachers of Christianity. Eleuther sent a bishop and priests to Britain, and they baptized the people and the king. Based on British traditions, this Lucius is identified with Lleirwg, Lies, Lleurwg. But this identification is quite arbitrary, and the legend itself is incredible, because under Eleuther (175–189) there could not have been a common king in Britain who would have commanded all the people. Can we really assume that Lucius was one of the petty princes who sent an embassy to Rome? But this assumption cannot be accepted by history, because the embassy is not mentioned in Eusebius and Jerome and in the “Catalogus pontificum romanorum”, which appeared in 354, where the most important acts of the popes are reported. The news first appeared in the 6th century. Beda the Venerable († 735), who published this news in his History of the English People, says that he used Latin sources. Thus, this legend is unreliable, and the time of its composition shows a tendency to increase papal authority. Apparently, another circumstance contributes to the acceptance of the opinion about the early penetration of Christianity into Britain. If around 170 Christianity was not widespread in Britain, then by the end of the 2nd century. His existence there should seem undoubted, because Tertullian speaks about it. But his message is suspicious simply because he speaks with oratorical pathos, which makes one doubt the historicity of the message, and this pathos was due to Tertullian’s apologetic tone. The British belonged to the Celtic tribe, the same one as the Gauls. The so-called Celtic language is divided into two branches, a) the Gaelic branch represents two varieties, aa) the Irish dialect of Ireland, ghaeidheilg eireannaigh. The ancient name of the island of Ireland is Bergion = cymr. "vergyn" - western, from where "Iernh", "Hibemia", the current Irish "Erin", pp) Albanian dialect in Scotland, ghaeidheilg albannaich (other spelling: gaelic albannaich). Scotland is called Albania "Albain" because the island faces Ireland with its mountainous side (alb - mountain, cf. alpes). b) Cymra branch, cymraeg; this is the so-called Welsh language, Welsh, the dialects of which were spoken in Wales, Cornwall, la Bretagne and in Britannia itself. If we turn to the relationship between these two branches, we will see that the Gaelic dialect represents a type of Latin language, and the Cymric dialect represents a type of Greek language. To explain and prove this, let us imagine the relationship between Latin and Greek, on the one hand, and between Gaelic and Cymric, on the other. Characteristic points: a) lat. "s" = Greek “'” (thick aspiration). Examples: sex = ex; septem = epta; sol = hlioV; sal = alV. b) Lat. "qu" = Greek. "p". Examples quo? = pwV; equus = ippoV; sequor = epomai; oculus = oyiV, proswpon. The Gaelic and Cymric languages ​​are related in a similar way: Gaelic ± Latin, Cymric ± Greek. As for the Gaulish language, as we see from its surviving remains, it is not related to the Gaelic, but to the Kymrian dialect. The Galli on the European continent were thus of the Kymrian branch. This is proven by the words: “Eporedia” (now Irvia) in Gallia cisalpina = kyMk. "Ebrwydd"; Brennus (391 according to Unger, 387 according to Nisa BC, burning of Rome: “vae victis”) = kyMk. narrated "brennin", king. We know, therefore, that in Scotland and Ireland there was one dialect, and in Britain there was another, the same as in Gaul. One might think that the connection by language could contribute to constant communication between Gaul and Britain and the communication of Christianity from the former to the latter. Caesar only conquered Britain by accident. This country was conquered in 85 by Agricola as far as the Peak Mountains - to Edinburgh. But the Romans could not penetrate further, and Emperor Hadrian even retreated to the south and built 17 fortifications - Vallum Hadriani (Hadrian's Wall, between present-day Newcastle and Carlisle, which almost coincides with 55° N latitude). In 142, Antoninus Pius built Vallum Pii (Pius's shaft, near Edinburgh-Glasgow-Dunbarton ± 56° N) between two bays. Roman rule fluctuated between these two walls. Septimius Severus barely managed to stay behind the second walls. He died in 211 at Eboracum (now York), where Constantine Chlorus also died. It is doubtful whether Christianity penetrated into Scotland at that time. It is very likely that Christianity penetrated into southern Britain from Gaul at this time. It can be considered beyond doubt that Christianity existed in Britain under Maximian. Panegyrists claim that Constantine Chlorus did not persecute Christians. But Constantine Chlorus, as Caesar, could not prevent the execution of the edict of the two emperors. And, indeed, under him there was persecution of Christians - Alban of Verulamium (Verulamium = Saint Albans) was tortured. He was a simple villager; During the persecution, he gave refuge to a Christian priest, who converted him to Christianity, and he died a martyr. Consequently, Christianity existed in Britain during Maximian's persecution. The Council of Arles (1 August 314) shows that a special government already existed in the British Church. This council was convened to destroy the Donatist schism. The Donatists turned to Emperor Constantine with a request to give them judges in their case from Gaul. Constantine wished that the British bishops would also appear at this council. Under the council's definitions was the signature of three British bishops: (24) Eborius episcopus de civitate Eboracensi pr(ovincia) Britannia. (25) Restitutus episcopus de civitate Londinensi pr(ovincia) suprascripta (bishop of London). (26) Adelfius episcopus de civitate Coloniae Londinensium; instead of Londinensium, according to some, there should be Legionensium = Caerleon on Usk, the main city in Britannia secunda, according to others - Lindi = Lincoln. One cannot conclude here about the consistent progress of Christianity in Britain. It is possible that these three bishops were the only bishops of the British Church. In 359, when the government of Constantius tried to organize the most grandiose council in Ariminum, the representatives of Britain appeared with a special, peculiar flavor that does not allow one to think that Christianity had existed among them for a long time. When the government offered support to the assembled bishops, they all refused it, with the exception of the British bishops, whose churches were distinguished by their poverty. It is clear that the British churches were not then in a state of prosperity. Further information about the British Church is very scanty. They meet 30 years after the Council of Arimin, when the Bishop of Rouen, Victoria (Victoricius Rotomagensis), traveled ca. 396 in Britain to destroy heretical disputes (due to the false teachings of Pelagius and Celestius). It can be assumed that Pelagius was originally British, and Celestius was Irish. However, the last assumption is very incredible, because if in the north of Britain it was difficult for the Romans to establish their rule, then Ireland remained completely unaffected by Rome and Christianity. Writer (Roman?) 5th century. calls Britain Roman and Ireland a barbarian island. – Prosper of Aquitaine was in Rome in 431 and asked Pope Celestine to send Bishop Palladius for the Scots. "Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a papa Celestino Palladius et primus episcopus mittitur." (Prosper. Aquit. Chron. ad AD. 431). But this mission was unsuccessful. St. was happier in his educational activities and in his mission. Patrick. His activities embraced Ireland. A lot of legendary works are associated with the name of this saint, but the authentic ones, which belong to the pen of St. himself. Patrick, are recognized: "Confessiones" with many biographical details and his message to the Christians living under the rule of the tyrant Coroticus. The latter was written on a private occasion. What Prince Korotik was like is unknown; we only know that he sold into slavery not only Christians, but also his pagan subjects. From the Confessiones it is known that St. Patrick was born in Britain. His name was first Sukat (meaning something like duke or prince); but, according to the custom of the time, he translated his name into Latin: Patricius. He was apparently from northern Britain; according to one of the [sources] – “Rilpatrick, now station between Dunbarton and Glasgow (between Dunbarton and Glasgow).” The center of the Irish enlightened by Patrick was in Armagh (William Bright). He was the son of deacon Calpurnius (son of Potitus). It follows that in Britain the clergy were married. Calpurnius was at first the mayor of his city, and, moreover, was a man of more civil than spiritual character. Patrick was not enlightened by Christianity until he was 16 years old. At the age of 16 he was captured in Ireland. He attributed this event to his sins. He spoke the Cimbri dialect and some Latin. During his captivity, Patrick learned Gaelic. He escaped from captivity; then he was captured again and fled again. Subsequently, he had a night vision: he was instructed to go to the country of Ireland (to the barbarians). Naturally, he applied for episcopal dignity to the British bishops; less likely to be in Rome. The case of St. Patricia was great and timely. The British were then left to their own devices by the Romans. Since the Romans left Britain in 450, pagans - the Anglo-Saxons - appeared in their place. This was reflected in the ancient British Church. After this event the British Church was persecuted. - At St. Patricia is noted, in addition to piety, a love of book education and extraordinary zeal for her mission. The basis of his zeal for missionary work was his love of travel, as a result of which he constantly traveled. And this quality was distinguished not only by Patrick, but also by all missionaries born in Britain. Along with this good trait, the British missionaries also had bad traits: petty selfishness and lack of community of interests; They saw rivals in their compatriots, raised weapons against them, and even used a church curse against each other. Among the British missionaries, Columbanus (from Columba - younger) was also prominent. He acted both among the Franks and among their neighboring Alamanni, who lived in Switzerland. In France, he founded three monasteries, of which Luxovium - Luxovium = Luxeuil - is the most remarkable. From France, Columban moved to Lombardy and here founded a new monastery - Bobbio, where he died in 615. His companions founded the monastery of Callech = Gallus in Switzerland. Fridolin was also Irish – Fridolin – the founder of the Sakingen bei Basel monastery. Killene (Cillene = Kilianus) Irishman active in Thuringen (martyr, f 689 in Würzburg). The Irishman Ferghil = Virgilius [Fergil] “Bischof von Salzburg und apostol von Kamthen” acted near Columban. He died in 789 as bishop of Salzburg. This was on the continent. Scotland, inhabited by the Picts, owes its enlightenment to Ireland. Three names are associated with preaching in Scotland: Ninian, Kentigem and Columba. The eldest of them, Ninian, Bishop of Windsor, was born in 370 in Britain, where St. Patrick. He was the first to spread Christianity among the Picts. His popular name is Ringan. The successor of his work is Cantigern, Bishop of Glasgow (probably † 603). His name (distorted Kindern - Cyndeym = a chief lord) was a common noun and meant the chief lord. The extent to which he seemed likeable is proven by his name, St. Mungo, which in the vernacular means amiable. Scotland's greatest missionary was Columba. His proper name “Crimthon” (= wolf) did not correspond to his meek character, so the bishop named him Colum - dove (columiile - church dove). This church dove arrived in 563 with 12 companions to the Hebrides, called Jona. The proper name of these islands in the Old Irish language is Eo, Jo, Ja, which means island. Jo was Latinized by the Latins as insula ioua. Illiterate scribes turned Joua into Jona, under which name these islands have remained to this day. The Hebrides Islands, called Hebudes, became Hebrides due to illegibility of writing. On the island of Jo, Columba built a monastery, which later became the metropolis of a whole series of monasteries. He died on June 9, 597. A characteristic feature of Irish-Scottish Christians is their unique attitude towards their tribe. Entering the monastery did not separate them from the tribe, and in the monastery the Irish felt like members of their community. And one of the members of the same community was chosen as the successor to the bishop in the monastery. The monastery, thus, represented the ancestral property of this community. This explains the emergence of secular abbots. They maintained a family connection with the founder of the monastery. From the fact that St. Patrick preached in Ireland at a time when monasticism especially asserted itself in the Christian world, which also explains the fact that monasticism became especially important in the church life of Ireland and Scotland. The ancient church relied on an episcopal diocese, later a parish (parish). The Irish-Scottish church is based on monasteries. Armagh, founded by Patricius, was subsequently made the metropolis of Ireland. And nowhere were monasteries of such importance as here. The main monasteries: a) Clonard (Cluain Iraird = Clonard) founded by St. Finian (Finniun, Finnen, † 550–552), west of Dublin, c) The prototype of a unique monastic metropolis is represented by Bangor (Bennchair-Uladh, Irish Bangor) east of Belfast, on the seashore (Banna - high rock, pointed island). Bangor was founded by St. Comgalem (Congal, Comgall, Comgill) in 558 and is the center of missionary activity, c) Benchair ys y coed - Bangor under the grove) founded by St. Dinoath (Dunawd Wr, Dunod Fyr), Irish priest 500–542. Three monasteries were founded in Wales. Bangor subsequently became the seat of an episcopal see, and the latter exists here to the present day. St. Columba founded a monastery on the island of Jo. In the 6th century, this monastery was a beacon of Christianity throughout the island. The significance of this monastery can be seen in the Venerable Bede: “Habere autem solet ipsa insula rectorem semper abbatem prasbyterum, cuius iuri et omnis provincia, et ipsi etiam episcopi, ordine inusitato, debcant esse subiecti doctoris illius, qui non episcopus, sed presbyter exstitit et monachus." Lanfranc 1074: “quod episcopi ab uno episcopo consecrantur” [“So, the island itself always has as its rector an abbot-presbyter, to whose justice, contrary to custom, the whole province, and even the bishop himself, must submit - to the justice of a learned man who is not a bishop, but a presbyter and a monk” Lanfranc: “...so that bishops are consecrated by one bishop” (Lat.)]. This monastery was ruled by an abbot presbyter; the entire province was under his jurisdiction - even the bishoprics of Bedu are struck by such features of the Irish-Scottish church system: the abbot-presbyter is the main leader of the region and commands the bishops. The fact of the subordination of bishops to presbyter-abbots gave Protestant scholars the idea that in ancient times there was no difference between presbyters and bishops and that this has been the case since apostolic times. But such a thought is tendentious and completely incorrect: there is no such example that even one abbot agreed to ordain a presbyter, not just a bishop; on the contrary, bishops ordained elders and bishops in the Irish-Scottish Church, but they were dependent on the elders who were at the head of the administration. Our court and military clergy can be taken as an example of this order: protopresbyters are accepted into service in this department, but bishops ordain them at their request. Only one feature of this church stands out: the ordination of a bishop by one bishop. But this, in turn, can be successfully explained by the weak development of church life in Ireland: there were very few bishops there - no more than three. A similar example of breaking church rules due to need is the African church. At the African Council it was decided that only 12 bishops could judge a bishop. At first after the decree, such an order was very possible, but subsequently the African bishops themselves had to deviate from it. Further, from the point of view of Western bishops, the consecration of a bishop by one bishop cannot seem strange if we remember the difference between bishops. celebrants and ep. assistants. Celebrants are persons bearing the rank of bishop, while assistants are presbyters who only represent bishops, so that consecration can be carried out by one celebrant and two assistants. Obviously, the whole point here is that the number 3 is maintained, i.e. the number of bishops required for consecration. So the idea that there was no difference between abbots and bishops cannot be tolerated. The abbots, to whose authority the bishops were subordinate in matters of government, themselves were entirely dependent on the bishops in religious matters. A typical representative of the Irish order in Europe was Virgil, Bishop of Salzburg. Having taken, at the request of Pepin, the Salzburg See, he, like a true Irishman, remained a presbyter, but took the administrative part into his own hands, governed Salzburg and the provinces dependent on it. Actually, Bishop Dogda performed his episcopal duties for him. Despite this, his position and authority were recognized by the bishops. This order continued for exactly 22 years. Virgil died, however, as a bishop, having accepted this rank just before his death. Administratively, Virgil was subordinate to the bishop. Boniface †753, but since he was a champion of Rome, he and Boniface constantly clashed. One of them occurred on the following occasion: the Bavarian priests, due to their illiteracy, pronounced the baptismal formula like this: “baptizo te in nomine patriae (vm. patris), et filiae (vm. filii), et Spiritue Sancti. When Boniface learned about this baptism into “fatherland and daughter,” he did not recognize those baptized in this way as Christians and demanded a new baptism. Virgil appeared as his opponent. Pope Zacharias also took Virgil’s side, and with a message of 746 he stopped the dispute that had arisen. But another time Boniface won. The fact is that Virgil, as an Irishman and, moreover, a sailor, recognized that the earth is round and, therefore, there are antipodes, that is, people living below us. For such thoughts as heresy, he was summoned to trial in Rome, where he was brilliantly justified and not only received forgiveness, but subsequently also the title of saint of the Roman church. Thus, such a monastic organization represents characteristic features only of Irish-Scottish monasteries. In 716 the monasteries were persecuted. The monks were expelled from the island of Jo and replaced by new Anglo-Saxon ones. A struggle broke out between them, which gave rise to a new revival. The new monks began to be called Cailede (ceile-de = Dei-calue, from the Latin colidei), which actually means allies of “socii” and only then “servi” - slaves of “Dei” - God. Scientists have fantasized about the origin and understanding of this word. Ebrard, for example, says that the colidei were pure Christians, true Christians, representatives of pure Orthodoxy, that they contained that ancient Christianity that existed from the very beginning of the British Church, that they were free from subordination to Rome, did not recognize the supremacy of the pope, etc. Consequently, here we see all the fantasies that are inherent in the Protestants of the Irish Church. But all this is considered completely implausible. According to new research by English scientists, Caile de from the 8th century. are the deputies of the empty monasteries of Jona. At first they represented the anchorite brothers and in this they differed from other monasteries. In other monasteries the number of brethren was from 3 to 4 thousand, and the number 3 (round number) was accepted as the traditional number. But even in small monasteries there were up to 150. There were few anchorites and they were celliots, then they began to unite in groups and they were assigned to cathedrals to perform solemn worship. The abbots of Caile de with their monks performed divine services, and the latter were engaged in singing - they were praecentores - the first choristers. Subsequently, these Keile-de merged with the chapters of the cathedrals and the secular canons began to be called Keilede; this title was also common for the canons of York and Armag cathedrals. But they did nothing serious on a scientific basis, and the upsurge of spirit was not at all similar to the activities that were characteristic of the ancient Irish church. And there is a lot of idealization regarding the Irish Church, namely, that it adopted Christianity from the Church of Asia Minor, did not recognize the authority of the Roman see, that it received a Greek structure, that it fought with Rome. The idea that the British Church received Christianity from the Asia Minor Church is now completely abandoned. The opponent of this is Gieseler, who claims that there is no basis for this - this is the conclusion of the British Church. The most important features of the British Church, according to the first educator of the Anglo-Saxons, St. Augustine, are as follows. He says: “In many ways you are doing something contrary to our customs and the customs of the entire universal church, and, however, if you want to obey in these three points: a) Easter must be observed in due time, b) the sacrament of baptism, in which we are reborn for God, you must perform according to the custom of St. the Roman and Apostolic Church, and c) together with us they must preach the word of the Lord to the English; then in all other respects, although you adhere to customs contrary to ours, you will enter into communication with us.” What was the difference between the British and Roman churches in the sacrament of baptism is difficult to find out. Lanfranc (11th century) indicates that infants were baptized without using the sacred Chrism. It is possible that the British priests did not use consecrated oil and poured in unconsecrated oil. The third feature is tonsure. The British clergy differed in this respect from the Roman clerics. The first point of Augustine's requirement is to celebrate Easter in its own time, i.e. together with the Roman Church, shows that Easter in the British Church was celebrated according to the custom of the Asia Minor Church, which differed in this celebration from the Roman Church. From this we can conclude that the British Church was a representative of the Eastern rite. But upon careful examination of the sources, the only certainty is that the British Church on the issue of celebrating Easter referred to eastern authorities: Theophilus and Cyril, the patriarchs of Alexandria. And from here one might think that the British-Irish Church follows the Eastern Church. The issue of celebrating Easter has its own history. Its first moment was the struggle of Columbanus (the younger) with the Gali clergy. Columbanus repeatedly appealed to Rome, seeking support there. He argued that the pope should stand on his side, motivating this by pointing to Anatoly, bishop of Laodicea, who praised Blessed Jerome for the latter’s establishment of the universal custom of celebrating Easter (which Columban followed) and calling everyone who disagreed with Jerome heretics. Columbanus did not receive support or approval from Pope Gregory, but did not yield. The second point is the cathedral in Strenaeshalc synode in 664. Its history is as follows. The King of Northumberland, Oswiu, received baptism from Britain and demanded bishops from there, of whom several actually succeeded one after another. Meanwhile, under his successor, Roman influence began to penetrate into Norumberland. Oswius's successor was married to Eanfled (die konigin Eanfled, die tochter Aedwins), a princess baptized according to the Roman rite. Thus, two rituals appeared at the Northumberland court - two Easters were celebrated in one year. Supporters of the Roman rite began to group around the queen, and the king was not inclined to allow its spread. A storm of struggle broke out when Colman, an ardent champion of local custom, became bishop. The Irish, thanks to their passion for travel, became convinced that, as they said, almost throughout the land Easter was celebrated in the Roman way, and not in the Irish way. The Irish were confused, and a council was held in 664 on the issue of celebrating Easter. Bishop Colman defended the local custom, and the Roman custom - Wilfrid. The latter began the debate with a reminder of the importance of unity in customs. Colman, in defense of the Irish Church, pointed out that it adheres to the tradition of St. fathers - ap. John and then Anatoly of Laodicea. Wilfrid refuted the importance of referring to these fathers with the remark that, on the one hand, the authority of St. stands for the Roman custom. Peter, who approved this custom, and on the other hand, that the Irish do not have the right to refer to the authority of St. John, since the named apostle is the authority of the churches of Asia Minor, who celebrate Easter on the 14th–15th of Nisan, no matter what day of the week this date falls on, and meanwhile they certainly celebrate Easter on Sunday. Wilfried finds the question about Anatolia inconvenient for the Irish. The fact is that in Ireland there was in circulation “liber Anatolii” - a forged one, which testified in favor of the Irish, but was in conflict with the genuine book of Anatolius, which Eusebius introduces us to through extracts from it in his writings. Further at this council the question of the holiness of the Irish fathers, who celebrated Easter in a non-catholic way, was discussed. Wilfrid spoke evasively on this issue - they probably celebrated Easter in their own way because they were not informed about the Roman custom - Catholic. In any case, no matter how great their holiness, Wilfrid noted, and the authority of the ap. Peter is higher, for he was told by Christ that he is the stone of the Church and he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The king asked whether these promises extended to the Irish bishops, and when Wilfrid assured him that they did not, he said that he accepted the Roman custom. Thus the king renounced the Irish custom, and Colman took the relics of the first Northumberland bishop and went with them to Scotland. Pope Vitelian performed a prayer service of thanksgiving to God on this occasion. Thus, the British Church referred to St. John and Anatoly. But Wilfried destroyed the meaning of the reference to the apostle. John and shook the authority of Anatoly. In addition to liber Anatoli de ratione paschali, Irish scholars published a treatise by Athanasius, bishop. Alexandrian about the reckoning of Easter and the prologue of St. Kirill, bishop Alexandrian As you know, the latter wrote Easter for 95 years, and the Irish distorted it in relation to their customs. Since the Roman Empire brought to the British Isles the reckoning of Dionysius the Less, which is also the reckoning of Cyril of Alexandria, accepted everywhere, the Irish and British churches also armed themselves against the practice of the entire church. Of course, it is possible to assume that the Eastern Church followed the practice of the Roman Church, and the British practice was more ancient than the Eastern, but not generally accepted. But this is not at all true: the Irish-British Church followed the ancient Roman Western rite, not the Eastern one. The point is this: from 213 to 312, Augustal wrote a cycle of celebrating Easter and in Rome - Romana Supputatio; in 312 this cycle was continued through 412. At some points the Augustalian cycle in Rome was canceled, but the general basis was left the same (84-year cycle). The announcement of this new cycle at the Council of Arelat (Aries 314) was entrusted to the Roman bishop. At this council it was decided: “Primo in loco de observatione paschae dominicae ut uno die et uno tempore peromnem orbem a nobis observatur, ut iuxta consuetudinem litteras ad omnes tu diregas” [First of all, regarding the celebration of the Lord's Easter on the same day and at the same time throughout the world, we noted that you, according to custom, send letters to everyone (Lat.)]. At this council, among other bishops, there were also British bishops who received copies of the continued reckoning, considering them quite satisfactory. But in Rome they soon felt the imperfection of the new reckoning, which is why in 354 they subjected it to correction. And, in the end, the reckoning of Dionysius the Less (84-year cycle) was introduced in Britain. No less important was attached to “tonsura”. By the time of Augustine's mission, a difference in hair wearing had been established between the Irish and Roman churches. Nowadays, during initiation into the surplice, a lock of hair is cut, but according to the ancient Eastern custom, it was cut into a comb, and wearing long hair was typical only for laymen. This assumption is confirmed by the ancient icon of Nicholas, depicting him with short hair. The Roman Bishop of Damasus, on the issue of the episcopal dignity of Maximus Cynicus, recognizes him as unworthy of the episcopal rank, as having long hair. But over time, a difference was established between the churches on this issue: in Rome they wore a tonsure - the hair around was cut short and represented a wreath, and on the crown the hair was cut smoothly and as the hierarchical rank increased, the tonsure increased, so that among the popes it was so large that a cap was used to cover it. In Ireland, the tonsure was different - it went from ear to ear, the front part was naked. In this custom, the Irish did not follow the Eastern rite, where they wore their hair short. One of the canons of the Council of Chalcedon requires that the so-called Erymites, who then wore long hair, should not live in cities. Thus, in the half of the 5th century, long hair was a distinctive feature of the Erymites. It may very well be that the custom of the Irish clergy to wear long hair finds its basis here, relying on monasteries, but on the other hand, the Irish clergy still had half their heads shaved. Another difference between the Roman and British churches was the doctrine of the marriage of the clergy. The celibacy of the clergy of the Roman Church was not accepted in the British Church. Proof of this is the names that existed at that time: “domina episcopa”, then used in application to the wives of bishops. From this we can see that in ancient times bishops lived with their wives. But there is also contrary information regarding this. According to this information, at that time, although it was considered disgraceful for bishops to divorce their wives, however, by accepting celibacy, the bishops promised to live with their wives as with sisters. The Eastern Church resolutely demanded the divorce of bishops from their wives, either by assigning benefits to them (the wives) or by demanding that they accept monasticism. Thus we cannot indicate that the Irish bishops led a married life. But it is known that Boniface called the Irish missionaries who came to Germany with the gospel preaching, prodigals. It is clear that they did not recognize Roman celibacy. It is also not known for certain whether the British Church recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. At that time, the primacy of the Roman Church was of two kinds: “primatus honoris” (primacy of honor) and “primatus potestatis” (primacy of power). Regarding the primatus potestatis of the Bishop of Rome, we can safely say that it was not recognized by the British Church at that time, at least de facto. It is known that Columban, although he received a negative answer from Pope Gregory regarding the Gallic clergy, did not consider it necessary to obey the pope’s instructions. The mutual relations of both these churches have become greatly strained since Augustine's mission to Britain. For greater success in the fight against the Scots and Picts, the Irish invited the Anglo-Saxons, but they soon became convinced that they were too dangerous assistants. The Anglo-Saxons established themselves in the southern provinces of Britain as the most fertile and, while remaining pagans, captured the Irish and sold them into slavery. Gregory the Great ransomed them and gave some of them theological education with the goal of sending them back to their homeland as missionaries. For this purpose, an entire mission was sent to the Anglo-Saxons, consisting of 40 monks, headed by Augustine. The chief king (konig Aedilbert von Kent) of the Anglo-Saxons, married to Bertha (konigin Bereta, “a daughter ofCaribert, king of Paris”), agreed to accept this mission. Roman missionaries had to operate on soil that was not entirely uncultivated. The queen herself did everything to win her husband over to Christianity. King Ethelbert was not a fanatic. The bishop lived in Kent. A church destroyed during the Saxon conquest was restored by the king for worship in Canterbury. On June 2, 597, on the fiftieth day, Ethelbert received baptism from Augustine in the church of St. Martina. England was then governed by the Witenagemote or Diet, to which the king reported his conversion to Christianity. More than 10 thousand Englishmen followed the king's example. Gregory the Great foresaw such successes and therefore agreed to the ordination of Augustine as bishop. In 597 in Gaul he was consecrated. Now, after 13 centuries, it is believed that Virgil, Bishop of Arelat, vicar of the pope, performed his consecration. Trouble does not name Virgil, but Etherius, the bishop of Lyons. Exact information about this has not been preserved. Gregory the Great, announcing the successes of the Christian cause of Eulogius, bishop. Alexandrian, wrote among other things in his epistle: “data a me licentia, a Germaniarum episcopis episcopus factus” (of course Augustine). By Germany we mean the place near the Rhine (Rhine Valley). In a literal sense, it is necessary to look here for the place of Augustine’s ordination. The geographical map of Gaul argues against the fact that the ordination took place in the southern city of Gaul - Arles. Indeed, why on earth would Augustine travel across all of Gaul? The matter was not about the dependence of England, the ordination was not carried out by virtue of law, but data licentia, - with permission; therefore it is impossible that Augustine received consecration from Aetherius of Lyons, although Lyon is far from England. In short, it is more likely to look for places of ordination in northern France. Returning as a bishop, on December 25, 597 (first indiction), Augustine baptized more than 10 thousand Englishmen. Gregory the Great learns about this in September 598. Since Augustine successfully continued his activities as a bishop, the pope in 601 on June 22 sent him a pallium and elevated him to archbishop. At the same time, the pope sent a plan for the hierarchical structure of England and instructions that explained Augustine’s perplexed questions. As much as the latter’s questions revealed his narrow views, the pope, in his plan and instructions, expressed his broad views on missionary work. Augustine, for example, was embarrassed by the difference in rituals in the English church, the performance of divine services for the queen according to the Gallic, and not the Roman, rite; Gregory the Great, on the contrary, does not insist on the universal introduction of Roman custom, but proposes to choose everywhere the best and most expedient for the business. According to his advice, the idols should be destroyed, the temples should be converted into Christian churches, to the place of the existing pagan holiday, when the English killed bulls and held a celebration, to commemorate the martyrs, also establishing a feast in honor of the One God. Augustine died in 604–605. In the last year of his life he ordained Justus of Rochester as bishop. Rochester and Mellitus (Mellitus of London) in ep. London. The matter, which remained unfinished after his death, continued by Bishop Lavrenty. Canterbury, died 619. But one might think that the matter was fragile; after the death of Ethelbert in Kent, paganism again took on its former character, so that Lawrence even considered fleeing England. But the storm passed, and Christianity was firmly established. March 26, 655 Ithamar (Ithamar [of Rochester] the first englisch bischop consecrated the first englisch archbischop, † 14 July 664), bishop. Rochester, the first natural English bishop, had the good fortune to consecrate the first Saxon under the name of Friton as bishop. Canterbury Of course, the matter of Christianization did not happen without serious upheavals, but in any case, Christianity penetrated more and more into the life of the people and became national, so that the seventh Bishop of Canterbury, Theodore of Tarsus, already enjoyed universal respect. It remains to make some comments about the broad views of Gregory the Great on the mission; at their basis, these views were partly political. If at the present time the Austrian emperor were to appear as a guest to the Italian king, then the Vatican would look at this visit in such a way that the pope would never be given the ecclesiastical region and that the unification of Italy under the control of the House of Savoy was decided irrevocably. Something similar happened in the life of England; its indigenous inhabitants, the Britons, were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, but the Britons never wanted to reconcile with their victors, they always fought with them and always dreamed of overthrowing their yoke. This explains the fact that the Britons did not at all try to enlighten their victors with Christianity, since this would lead to rapprochement and reconciliation of the warring parties, which the Britons did not want. Therefore, Gregory the Great does not reproach the Britons for not being missionary; he reproaches the bishops of Gaul for the fact that they should have taken up the education of the Anglo-Saxons even earlier. Gregory the Great politically called for the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons not the Britons, but a special mission from Rome, and the very ordination of Augustine was carried out by the bishops not of the British Church, but of the Gallic one. This revealed a complete disregard for the existing British Church, which adhered to the rites of the Eastern Church; and since the Roman mission brought with it Roman customs, the existing gap between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons widened even more. When Augustine was awarded the pallium, together with the latter, Gregory the Great sent him his plan for the future structure of the English church. This plan, as drawn up by a person unfamiliar with the state of affairs on the ground, despite its theoretical harmoniousness, was very impractical. Dad knew that there were two great cities in England - London and York - and therefore thought that the center of Christianity would be here. But the fact is that only the King of Canterbury was a Christian, while London was in the power of pagans, and therefore the intention to make this city the capital of Christianity turned out to be impracticable. Gregory the Great further ordered Augustine to ordain 12 bishops within England, and then, when the bishop of York also received the pallium, he was also to ordain 12 bishops for his area. England and Gaul should be independent of each other in ecclesiastical terms. While Augustine lives, all the bishops of England must obey him, but after his death, the senior one should be either the Bishop of London or York, depending on who is senior in consecration. General matters were to be decided at the council by bishops. “So, your brotherhood,” wrote Pope Augustine, “not only those bishops whom you yourself ordained, not only those who will be ordained by the Bishop of York, but also all British priests (your brotherhood) must be subordinate...” Thus, the British Church should remain in subjection to Augustine, its entire past completely erased. Augustine decided to convene a council. The British bishops attended the meeting. At first things went better than could have been expected. The leaders of the British Church were so determined that they had nothing against agreeing with Rome; but they intended to accept this agreement only on the condition that the bishop's personality made a good impression - a man of God, if he met them with honor and if he stood up when meeting with the British bishops. But Augustine, when meeting with them, remained sitting in his pulpit. As a result, the British bishops did not agree to anything, because a concession on one point would lead to a disdainful attitude towards them from the Roman bishops. Therefore, the British bishops refused, firstly, to celebrate Easter on the same day as the Roman Church, and, secondly, to recognize Augustine as an archbishop. The relationship between the hierarchs and Lawrence was very strained. This is evidenced by the fact that when Lawrence once had to meet with the British bishops, the latter refused to eat together. The trouble shows that communication between churches occurred out of necessity. In his essay on the British Church he says that the new Saxon Church responded by refusing to recognize the consecrations of the British Church. Gregory the Great's plan was that the Anglo-Saxon Church should consist of 26 bishops, unite with the British Church and be subordinate to Augustine. The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons did not proceed quickly, because the Anglo-Saxons were divided into several kingdoms, therefore Christianity did not progress particularly quickly in the south, just like in the north. Things went slowly, and only in 625 could Peacock be consecrated bishop of York. The activity of this bishop was brilliant, but only until 633, when he ended his life at the see of Rochester. Thus, missionary activity became increasingly established in the north of Britain. We know how, in 664, Wilfrid managed to persuade King Oswius to accept Roman rather than British rites. When Ceadda arrived in Kent, the Archbishop of Canterbury died, and Caadda, so as not to return as a presbyter, went to Wenchester to see Bishop. Vini, and the latter, having called two British bishops, ordained him bishop of Northumbria. Thus, from the Saxon point of view, the new bishop turned out to be a dubious ordination, because his ordination was carried out by British bishops and he also celebrated Easter with them. In the same 664, Bishop Agilbert (of Paris) was present at the council of bishops and, having removed the British bishops, forced Wilfrid to be ordained as a bishop. Meanwhile the king was asked who should remain on the high throne of Northumbria; and then they decided to take care of the speedy replacement of the Archbishop of Canterbury and settled on the person of Vigard of the Anglo-Saxon. But in order for Wigard to have legal ordination, for this he had to go to Rome, where he, in fact, went and became a victim of the plague. Correspondence arose between the Roman Bishop Vitelian and Oswius about replacing the See of Canterbury. The matter was not easy to settle. Vitelian said that he would ordain a person with whom everyone would be happy, and he proposed Abbot Adrian. The latter was not accepted, and instead they wanted Theodore, who is known to have been in Rome in 667. The idea that he came with the Emperor Constans is a hypothesis; but that he was an educated man is evidenced by Pope Zechariah (741–752), who calls him a Greco-Latin philosopher and says that he was educated in Athens (“graeca latinus ante philosophus et Athenis eruditus”). Adrian was offered to go with Theodore to Rome in order to have supervision over Theodore, because the latter had an Eastern upbringing, and it was the time of monothelitism, and all the spiritual people there recognized not only ekqesiV, but also tupoV, and therefore had reason not to trust Theodore. In 667, Theodore was 65 years old when he received the see. In Rome he was ordained subdeacon. But tonsure could not be placed on him before 4 months, until his cut hair grew back. He quickly rose in the hierarchical ranks and on March 26, 668, he was ordained Bishop of Canterbury by Vitalian. Two months later he set off through Gaul - a series of Frankish possessions, where the personality of his companion Hadrian made an unfavorable impression; after a slow and lengthy journey, he finally arrived in England. There was turmoil in the English hierarchy at that time. Bishops Wilfrid and Caadda were at odds with each other over the question of who should be bishop of Northumbria, and when Oswius took Wilfrid's side in this dispute, Caadda, expelled from Northumbria, took another see. At the same time, Bishop Vini, through simony, received the London see. Theodore, not having the power to stop these riots, had to put up with them. Theodore's plan partly resembles the plan of Gregory the Great - together with the latter, he stood for the multiplication of bishops. But in this endeavor he encountered the custom of not having many bishops in England. On September 24, 672, Theodore convened a council in Hertford, at which all the English bishops were present, except Vini. The first question raised was whether the bishops present agreed to follow the canons of St. fathers, and when a general affirmative answer was given, they began to publish laws and, first of all, the law on Easter, by which it was decided to celebrate it on the first Sunday after March 14. In general, Roman customs were preserved in the resolutions of this council. But Theodore's position was precarious. In 670, Oswius and Egbert died, and since Theodore could not rely on the support of Oswius' successor Egfrid, he retired to the north of England. But there he had a clash with Wilfried, and he went over to Egfried’s side. In Wilfrid's absence, he arrived in York and, anxious to increase the hierarchy, installed three bishops. Wilfrid was expelled, and he arrived in Rome in 679 with an appeal to the apostolic see. At a council in Rome in October 679, under the chairmanship of Pope Agatho, Wilfrid's statement was considered and recognized as correct; it was determined that there should be 12 episcopal sees in England and of them one archbishop. Wilfrid, therefore, was completely satisfied: Theodore’s actions were recognized as uncanonical and it was decided to depose the bishops he had ordained. But when, after some time, Wilfrid returned to York (680), the king, who sided with Theodore, ordered the arrival of Wilfrid to be arrested and imprisoned. Thus, Wilfrid, instead of being recognized as the legitimate successor to the York see and despite the approval of the Roman Council and the Pope, ended up in prison, and there was no talk of any respect for him. Wilfried's lot was soon relieved. He was released from prison, but was forced to leave Northumbria; his place of activity was Sussex, where he gained honorable fame during the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. Meanwhile, Theodore continued to act in the north in Northumbria, so the intention of Gregory the Great - to establish a metropolitanate in York - was not realized. Theodore acted as the metropolitan of all England, he erected and appointed bishops, opened new sees, etc., although he was not happy in the choice of people. Thus, Theodore was forced to depose Tunbert, who was ordained bishop of Hexham in 681, by Theodore in 684, and installed Eata in his place; On March 26, 685, he installed Cuthbert to the see of Hexham. But the year 685 marks the climax of Theodore's importance and popularity throughout northern England. The next year 686 was marked by another remarkable phenomenon in the life of Theodore. Feeling the approach of death, he wished to reconcile with Wilfried, especially since he had heard rumors about the latter’s successful activities. Theodore treated him with respect and humility and even invited him to be a successor to the Canterbury department. But Wilfried, a man of iron convictions and truly German concepts of his rights, remained unshaken. He demanded that the York see be returned to him. Through the influence of Theodore, he was offered one of the Northumberan bishoprics, since the one at Yor was occupied at that time; Little by little, Wilfried reached the York pulpit, but his energy was such that it did not allow him to end his days here; he began to ignore Theodore's orders. Wilfrid did not want to increase the episcopal sees in Northumbria, but decided to remain there as one bishop. However, now the Anglo-Saxons themselves did not want this, so in 691 he was offered a choice: either adhere to Theodore’s order or completely retire, and Wilfrid preferred the latter kind of alternative. The Council of English Bishops did not speak in favor of Wilfrid on this matter; he transferred this matter to Rome, as a result of which in 704, under John VI, his rights were recognized as legal. Wilfried himself, tired of life's hardships, wanted to end his days in one of the Roman monasteries, but the pope insisted that he go to his homeland and actually accept his rights. When Wilfrid arrived in Northumbria, he was told that the old order would no longer be restored, and if he wished, then he should be content with the episcopal see and the monastery he founded in Ripon, otherwise he would be sent there into captivity without the right to leave. The aged Wilfrid agreed to be bishop of Hexhan and Ripon, and, a short time after occupying this see, he died in October 709. On September 19, 690, Theodore, Archbishop, passed away. Canterbury The Venerable Bede rightly notes that he did so much for the Anglo-Saxon Church like no one before him, and his successors could not compare with him. Theodore created the basic structure of the English church, although he strove for something that history has not confirmed with a verdict. The Anglo-Saxon Church did not become a church body with one head - the See of Canterbury. Along with her, the York woman rose to prominence, the rise of which Theodore had not imagined. But the episcopal sees he planned have remained to this day. The position of the English church, which existed before Theodore, became impossible. He contributed to the improvement of the English church and the planting of monasteries. He cared about the rise of enlightenment not only theological, but also purely civil. He did not forget his Greek origin in England and took care of the implantation of education not only in Latin, but also in Greek. But it is unlikely that things went further than copying Greek books and understanding them. Thus, in the early history of the English church, Theodore constitutes an outstanding era. But he did not solve all the problems; after him, the British church, which existed separately from the Anglo-Saxon one, begins to slowly give in to it. In 766, the Anglo-Saxon Church celebrated its victory over the British rites (Easter and tonsura). In 768, the Roman rite was introduced in northern Wales, and in other places - by the first decades of the 9th century, and even then this was not a church celebration, but a civil one, because the unified Anglo-Saxon state founded by the Anglo-Saxon king Egbert left one seal on church life. Thus, the modern English church can consider the beginning of its origin in 597. The British church undoubtedly existed earlier, perhaps 300 years or even older, however, the English church dates back to the Anglo-Saxon, organized by Augustine. But complete mixing of the ancient type with the new did not occur; on the contrary, the ancient type was suppressed by the new, and if something remained of it, it was in insignificant pieces, without changing the church character. If these relations did not lead to the complete enslavement of Rome, despite even the outburst of John the Landless, then this lay in the character of the people, and not in the character of the church type to which the English Church currently adheres. Therefore, although it belongs to the Reformed churches, in its judgment regarding the Roman see it is like no other Protestant church. Perhaps this reflects an unconscious respect for the country’s past, because the English Church itself originated from Rome. Psychologically, it is possible to explain why, in accordance with the Greek martus (witness), in other languages ​​concepts related in their sense to the organ of hearing (“hearing”) are presented. A conscientious witness, it is assumed, first hears the scream of the victim, and by the time he comes running to the scream of the person being killed, then everything will be over. If he “co-witnessed”, then he may be suspected of, if not assisting, then at least conniving with the perpetrator of the murder. Hence we find, apparently, a contradiction in Holy Scripture: “If anyone does not provide for those around him, he is greater than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8) writes the apostle. Paul, and Christ says: “Do not worry about the morning” (Matthew 6:34). But there is no contradiction here, you just have to turn to the Greek text. The apostle has (jrontixw) - a word denoting simple care, but in the Gospel merimnw is a word that is much more ponderous. In the concept of “martus” there was hardly any meaning of martyrs as judicial witnesses in the literal sense of the word, since they, as eyewitnesses, testified in court even under torture (which gave their testimony legal significance, despite their social position) that nothing bad was done among Christians (cf. three flagitia, “demands”) (Ens. h.e. V, 1:19). These ad acta statements (generally “recorded”) subsequently constituted historical evidence about Christians and very likely had an impact on the outcome of the struggle between paganism and Christianity. We are talking about the 19th century, when these lectures were given. An inscription on marble supposedly found in Portugal, in which Nero is praised “for cleansing the provinces from bandits and from those who wanted to introduce a new superstition,” is false. In 1862, this inscription was replaced by another, made in charcoal on a wall in Pompeii, on which the word HRISTIAN is spelled out. De Rossi, on this basis, proves the universality of persecution under Nero. He proceeds from the assumption that this indication of the writing should be read: “igni gaude christiane”. But other scholars (F. Overbeck, Aube, Gorres, Langen, Schultze), who also cannot be considered competent, thoroughly point out that the entire argument of Rossi and his followers rests only on the word “Christian”, and from this alone nothing more can be deduced than what was known about Christians in Pompeii and, perhaps, laughed at them; or maybe this whole inscription has nothing to do with Christians and is nothing more than an advertisement for the sale of wines (one word is interpreted as “vina”). In any case, the word “igni” was read by De Rossi with great stretch. The legal form of the process was as follows. 1) It began with nominis et criminis delatio (cp. “si deferantur” in the rescript). A private individual appeared before the tribunal of the president and declared “ad acta” (with entry into the protocol) of his intention to prosecute. The act was drawn up in the following form: Consul et dies. Apud ilium praetorem vel proconsulem. Lucius Titius professus est se Maeviam lege Julia de adulteriis deferre quod dicat (“Consul and day. With such and such a praetor or proconsul. Lucius Titius declared that, according to the Julian law on adultery, he exposed Maevia, saying the following.” Then followed the testimony that the crime was committed at that time and there). 2) The president investigated whether the accusation was seriously motivated enough to begin the trial, whether this Lucius Titius had the right to act as prosecutor, and whether he had lost this right due to infamia. If the investigation was favorable to the accuser, the president allowed him to conduct the trial (the permission was called nominis receptio) and set a day for the trial. 3) But from that moment “haerebant in tabulis publicis reus et accusator” (the accused and the accuser are indicated side by side in public documents), the role assumed by the latter could have an unfavorable effect on himself. He could not back down from the accusation: for such a “tergiversatio” he was expected to be fined and infamia (dishonor with deprivation of the right to act as a prosecutor in the future). The accuser may not have proven his accusation. But at the trial it turned out that, while accusing an innocent person, the accuser was honestly mistaken. Then the judge only told him: “non probasti” (not proven). This had no harmful consequences for the prosecutor. If it turned out that he knew about the innocence of the accused, but maliciously accused him, then the judge said to the accuser: “calumniatus es” (you slandered), and not only infamia fell on him, but often even talio (that is, the accuser was subjected to the same punishment that the accused would have suffered if he had been really guilty). To the credit of the Romans, it must be said that there was no vice that they hated more than slander. Julian the Apostate's contemptuous attitude towards accusations is known. One city resident accused his neighbor of a state crime. Julian, busy with more important matters, did not pay attention to the annoyance. But the accuser did not calm down: he continued to bother the emperor with his incessant requests to investigate his accusation, so that the emperor had to decide to finally end this matter. The investigation showed that the reason for the accusation of a state crime was the neighbor's custom of wearing red silk clothes. Then the emperor, turning to his treasurer, ordered him to give the accused another piece of this material so that he could make shoes for himself. At the official appearance of the emperor and dignitaries, the people greeted them with their good wishes (acclamationes, instead of our “hurray!”). Well-wishes were often accompanied by expressions of the wishes of the people themselves (preces), which could turn into threatening cries. For example, the greeting to Alexander Severus in 222: “Alexander imperator, di te servent, di te nobis dederunt, di conservent!” Or excerpts from exclamations in Rome on December 31, 192, after the death of Commodus and the election of Pertinax. Acclamationes: “Juppiter optime maxime, serva nobis Pertinacem!.. Exercitibus romanis, feliciter! Pietati senatus, feliciter! Preces: “Rogamus, Auguste, parricida trahatur! Exaudi, Caesar, delatores ad leonem! Gladiatoris statuee undique! Delatores de senatu, delatoribus fustem! Parricidae cadaber unco trahatur! Gladiatoris cadaver unco trahatur! Omnes censemus unco trahendum! Omnia scis, omnia emenda"!) (they demanded the desecration of the corpse of Commodus, the overthrow of all his statues, the expulsion of informers from the Senate). The frequent use of the name “Aurelia” in these documents is explained by the fact that in 212 the constitutio Antonina was published, according to which everyone, without exception, even those who were not in public service, adopted this name, just as in subsequent times, after Constantine the Great, those in public service and the emperors themselves bore the name “Flavia”. These names in historical criticism are important in assessing the authenticity of various historical documents. So, for example, the later authors of acts of martyrdom, not being able to renounce the usual contemporary name of Flavius, apply it to the emperors of the period of persecution, which clearly exposes the later origin of these acts.